# Mozart versus Beethoven



## Guest

I belong to a musical forum in which most of the contributors believe that Mozart was a greater composer than Beethoven. They mostly cite reasons to do with elegance, restraint, ethereal qualities, ineffable beauty etc., and suggest Beethoven wore his heart on his sleeve and was often too dramatic. What do people think? I prefer Beethoven over all others, but I want the opinion of others too. Thanks.


----------



## Argus

Mozart's rubbish, Beethoven isn't. Easy choice.


----------



## Sid James

well, whatever musical forum you are a member of, it sounds like they are living on another planet to most lovers of classical music whom i know. most people i talk to don't compare two composers like this, it doesn't even enter their mind. all them & i are set on is just taking both these great composers on their own terms, and enjoying them for their unique qualities. that's what music appreciation is about for me, not these useless comparisons. doing this is like pseudo intellectual wankery. it's like of zero percent use in terms of enjoying any types of music, whether by these two guys or others. i'm just over comparing, i'm more for enjoying on a simple, basic level, no bullsh*t. i've basically had enough of the bullsh*t, and most of it regarding comparing composers is found online (although this forum, talkclassical, is pretty balanced compared to some others i have been on, but given up on - what a waste!)...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

In before 500 pages.

Gotta be Beethoven based on his innovation in what music can express. I feel the only work of Mozart I've heard that can rival the depth of humanity of Beethoven is his Requiem, which wasn't even finished by him anyway.

But I think Bach could piledrive them both.


----------



## Aramis

Such "versus" threads make sense only if there are two opposite composers given who both represent extremely diffrent ideas. Mozart and Beethoven don't. Two greats of classical period - who was greater? Who cares? I'll tell you who - bores. Yes, they care a lot. After they finish discussing this subject let them make another list of 10 greatest composers of all time and argue if Bach should be above Mozart or if Wagner should be at #4 between Bizet and Johann Strauss or at #8 between Liszt and Schoenberg. Then they can go listen to Brahms' op. 118.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> Such "versus" threads make sense only if there are two opposite composers given who both represent extremely diffrent ideas. Mozart and Beethoven don't.


It's because they're the two that any random Joe is likely to name if you ask them to name two classical composers.

[] vs. [] threads are pretty banal, but the "what's the point of this?" posts every one gets aren't exactly more substantial. Yes we get it, it doesn't matter who's greater, but maybe some interesting discussion can come out of it *monocle pops off*


----------



## Serge

The personal preference of Mozart over Beethoven and visa versa could be the matter of what people are seeking out in music. Different folks, different strokes; quite bluntly put. The music of Mozart often reminds me of crystal structures – beautiful to look at, if you enjoy that kind of thing (and even I often do), but what it’s all about? On the other hand, awhile ago when I was trying to figure out why I would prefer one kind of music over the other, I used to come up with some very simple word tags describing the music and discovered that “dramatic” was my absolute favorite. Music being “too dramatic”? A clear possibility (and I don’t like that either), I just don’t see it happening in Beethoven. But then, of course, I am not looking at his music from the “Mozart people” perspective.


----------



## CaptainAzure

Argus said:


> Mozart's rubbish, Beethoven isn't. Easy choice.


That is utter [nonsense]


----------



## emiellucifuge

Why do I have to choose?


----------



## Ukko

Andre said:


> well, whatever musical forum you are a member of, it sounds like they are living on another planet to most lovers of classical music whom i know. most people i talk to don't compare two composers like this, it doesn't even enter their mind. all them & i are set on is just taking both these great composers on their own terms, and enjoying them for their unique qualities. that's what music appreciation is about for me, not these useless comparisons. doing this is like pseudo intellectual wankery. it's like of zero percent use in terms of enjoying any types of music, whether by these two guys or others. i'm just over comparing, i'm more for enjoying on a simple, basic level, no bullsh*t. i've basically had enough of the bullsh*t, and most of it regarding comparing composers is found online (although this forum, talkclassical, is pretty balanced compared to some others i have been on, but given up on - what a waste!)...


I put a 'like' on this post because I agree with the basic sentiment wholeheartedly. The typing, not so much; and I can handle the 'bullsh*t' pretty well (and produce it,too).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Argus said:


> Mozart's rubbish, Beethoven isn't. Easy choice.


Nah, actually both are rubbish.

:tiphat:


----------



## Ukko

Well, Jeez! Mozart wrote music for flute. Is this ingratitude, or what!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I prefer Beethoven over all others, but I want the opinion of others too.


You prefer Beethoven over all others. That's good for you. So why do you care about the opinion of others?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You prefer Beethoven over all others. That's good for you. So why do you care about the opinion of others?


 Intellectual curiosity endangers one's opinion how..?


----------



## Polednice

It's telling that their reasons can be summarised with a small list of generalised characterisations rather than anything technical or even substantial.

To criticise Beethoven in comparison by saying that his music is 'too dramatic' and emotionally open - again, pathetic little caricatures - seems to just be an exercise in flouting an affectation, as the listener wants other people to believe he is civilised, emotionally restrained, stiff upper-lip and all that. Nope - just stuck up.


----------



## haydnfan

Beethoven is the more influential composer. But then again in opera, I don't think we've seen a composer change so much since Monteverdi. Personally enjoy both composers, who are two of the greatest that ever lived. Ranking the greatest composers is an exercise for fools.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well, Jeez! Mozart wrote music for flute. Is this ingratitude, or what!


Beethoven made some nice flute solos in his orchestral works, one I had to do for college auditions, and Mozart made the concerto and chamber stuff. I guess I could say I respect those for their places in the repertoire. But both composers aren't my type, they're only fundamental to learn. Maybe one day I'll truly like them.

Actually, I enjoy _pretending _to love those works, and make people think like I really love them! That's the role of the musician: the opinion doesn't obstruct the expression.


----------



## tdc

Edited - Have a nice day.


----------



## TresPicos

haydnfan said:


> Beethoven is the more influential composer. But then again in opera, I don't think we've seen a composer change so much since Monteverdi. Personally enjoy both composers, who are two of the greatest that ever lived. Ranking the greatest composers is an exercise for fools.


At least until the concept of "greatness" is properly defined.


----------



## Kieran

Had Beethoven died aged 35, this wouldn't even be a topic.

Mozart. He composed more of everything - and his operas _own_...but I like Ludwig too! :tiphat:


----------



## Meaghan

Eh. I love Mozart. I love Beethoven more. (Doesn't make him "greater.")


----------



## Artemis

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I belong to a musical forum in which most of the contributors believe that Mozart was a greater composer than Beethoven. They mostly cite reasons to do with elegance, restraint, ethereal qualities, ineffable beauty etc., and suggest Beethoven wore his heart on his sleeve and was often too dramatic. What do people think? I prefer Beethoven over all others, but I want the opinion of others too. Thanks.


Which forum would that be?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*next up- Son versus Holy Ghost*



> I believe in God, Mozart and Beethoven, and likewise their disciples and apostles; - I believe in the Holy Spirit and the truth of the one, indivisible Art; - I believe that this Art proceeds from God, and lives within the hearts of all illumined men; - I believe that he who once has bathed in the sublime delights of this high Art, is consecrate to Her for ever, and never can deny Her; - I believe that through Art all men are saved. Richard Wagner


I'm not sayin' *I* believe this- but is IS a thought-provoking perspective, and about the closest I think I can come to a meaningful contribution to a thread like this...


----------



## Ukko

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Beethoven made some nice flute solos in his orchestral works, one I had to do for college auditions, and Mozart made the concerto and chamber stuff. I guess I could say I respect those for their places in the repertoire. But both composers aren't my type, they're only fundamental to learn. Maybe one day I'll truly like them.
> 
> Actually, I enjoy _pretending _to love those works, and make people think like I really love them! That's the role of the musician: the opinion doesn't obstruct the expression.


Both of them composed with a pre-Boehm - maybe even Baroque - flute in mind. Maybe if you played one the music would be less 'fundamental'?

:devil:


----------



## Tapkaara

I prefer King Kong vs Godzilla, personally.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> I prefer King Kong vs Godzilla, personally.


 That figures.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> That figures.


Indeed, it does!


----------



## Kieran

Tapkaara said:


> I prefer King Kong vs Godzilla, personally.


Godzilla's flute concerto's are about as subtle as an over-sized jungle creature trying to sit still and unnoticed in a public library...


----------



## Tapkaara

Kieran said:


> Godzilla's flute concerto's are about as subtle as an over-sized jungle creature trying to sit still and unnoticed in a public library...


Well, have you seen the size of the flute needed for Godzilla's concerto? It's actually a factory smoke stack with holes carved into it. What a sound!


----------



## Kieran

Tapkaara said:


> Well, have you seen the size of the flute needed for Godzilla's concerto? It's actually a factory smoke stack with holes carved into it. What a sound!


I've never seen it performed. I've _heard_ it, but all that smoke gets in my eyes. King Kongs operas, by comparison, are surprisingly delicate. Who'd have thought the soprano would keep singing after her head had been ripped off? Some trick, but she managed it!


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> Indeed, it does!


 It's very nice to see you back here. I hope you don't mind if I join you, at least for a spell. However, you might need to watch out for all the Mozart lovers gathering around you, myself included of course.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> Well, have you seen the size of the flute needed for Godzilla's concerto?


However big, I bet it would still rattle inside some people's mouths I can think of. Thankfully, they're all gone, with some of them now doing penance on that other forum, whose name I won't mention but you know it well.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> However big, I bet it would still rattle inside some people's mouths I can think of. Thankfully, they're all gone, with some of them now doing penance on that other forum, whose name I won't mention but you know it well.


Indeed, I of whom you speak. Any place that is stupid enough to allow him, ultimately, deserves him.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> It's very nice to see you back here. I hope you don't mind if I join you, at least for a spell. However, you might need to watch out for all the Mozart lovers gathering around you, myself included of course.


Thank you, Artemis. After being gone for a while, I decided that Mozart-lovers are people too, and I need to give them love, not hate.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> Thank you, Artemis. After being gone for a while, I decided that Mozart-lovers are people too, and I need to give them love, not hate.


That's so nice of you. I'm overcome with emotion.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> That's so nice of you. I'm overcome with emotion.


Well, it's not that I "hated" Mozartophiles, per se. It's just that "I was missing the point." So many points missed in this forum, to be sure.


----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> I've never seen it performed. I've _heard_ it, but all that smoke gets in my eyes. King Kongs operas, by comparison, are surprisingly delicate. Who'd have thought the soprano would keep singing after her head had been ripped off? Some trick, but she managed it!


If anyone could do it, it would be an operatic soprano. Some of them sound like the procedure is in-process.

:devil:


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> Well, it's not that I "hated" Mozartophiles, per se. It's just that "I was missing the point." So many points missed in this forum, to be sure.


Like you, I'm taking this thread deadly seriously. I do hope that the character who opened up this thread comes back, as requested, to tell us which forum it is where there are so many Mozart lovers that he feels awkward about preferring Beethoven.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> Like you, I'm taking this thread deadly seriously. I do hope that the character who opened up this thread comes back, as requested, to tell us which forum it is where there are so many Mozart lovers that he feels awkward about preferring Beethoven.


Well, in the original spirit of this thread, I prefer Beethoven. No reason, I just do. Thank you.


----------



## Artemis

Tapkaara said:


> Well, in the original spirit of this thread, I prefer Beethoven. No reason, I just do. Thank you.


But if I remember correctly, you don't like Mozart at all, rating him more in the "garbage" department of classical music than as as a God-like figure. Or have you had a complete change of mind on this issue?

While you are reflecting on this, may I draw your attention to the similar thread listed at the foot of this page started by Rod Corkin a few years ago. It contains some quite interesting and relevant comments on the subject.


----------



## Tapkaara

Artemis said:


> But if I remember correctly, you don't like Mozart at all, rating him more in the "garbage" department of classical music than as as a God-like figure. Or have you had a complete change of mind on this issue?
> 
> While you are reflecting on this, may I draw your attention to the similar thread listed at the foot of this page started by Rod Corkin a few years ago. It contains some quite interesting and relevant comments on the subject.


The infamous God/Garbage thread with created with my tongue rather firmly in my cheek. I could never justifiably label him as "garbage." Though I would not personally label him a God, either.

The fact is, time and again, I have failed to appreciate Mozart in a way that is common throughout the realm of classical music fandom. I have questioned Mozart's greatness and, each time, I have unleashed a fury that I cannot contend with. So be it.

Having had my run at anti-Mozartism, I now feel that while it was fun to be a little provocative, it was, ultimately, a useless enterprise. I have more fun talking about the things I like than the things I don't like. Having said that, you will all find that, from here on out, I'll probably never join in any Mozart-related discussions again. I'll leave those discussions to those who enjoy his music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Gotta be Beethoven based on his innovation in what music can express. I feel the only work of Mozart I've heard that can rival the depth of humanity of Beethoven is his Requiem, which wasn't even finished by him anyway.

I'm always struck by the number of on-line music forum members who make such judgments concerning Mozart's apparent lack of emotional depth. Of course such a judgment is to be expected considering the preference for Romanticism as a whole, as opposed to almost any other musical movement. I personally fall in with the thoughts of Oscar Wilde who suggested in his preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray: _"The artist is the creator of beautiful things... All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."_

There is no more of less emotion or "meaning" in Mozart than in Beethoven. Whatever emotion or meaning is there is that which we (the audience) perceive. Beethoven uses a minor key more often and employs a greater contrast in dynamics. Thus he is more emotional? More tragic? As a visual artist I have a solid grasp of what elements to employ to convey drama and tragedy: a large contrast of light and dark (chiaroscuro) combined with a limited color range (and a use of black and red)... and throw in a heavy, profound subject, such as death, and I am assured of inspiring a certain emotional response. But does this make the work better or worse than that of an artist such as Monet who employs joyful colors and subjects drawn from everyday life? Certainly not. If such were true, then would not an artist simply choose to employ "profound" subject matter and dark colors (or a minor key) in order to assure the profundity of the work?

It is easy to be seduced by our emotional responses to a work of art... by sentiment. But are these what makes for a better or worse work of art? Mozart worked in an era prior to Romanticism and Burke's essay on the Sublime and the notion that inspiring a "profound" emotional response to a work of art was the highest aspiration of the artist. Mozart's work, I would argue, is no less marvelous than Beethoven's. It is laden with wit, dazzlingly brilliant, daring in the manner in which he plays with the audience's expectations. Considering his operas alone, he is no less innovative than Beethoven. Nor is he without moments of that are the most touching and laden with emotion. He simply doesn't wallow in these. Such moments occur... as a sudden thought of mortality or loss in the midst of a glittering ballroom dance... and then he is off dancing again.

I don't mind comparisons in art, but like Andre, I do sense they are something of a waste of time. Art is not a heavy-weight bout: "And in this corner, wearing a powdered wig and weighing in at 192 pounds we have Johann Sebastian Bach!!!" Surely, there are better ways to discuss an artist's achievements?


----------



## Kieran

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Gotta be Beethoven based on his innovation in what music can express. I feel the only work of Mozart I've heard that can rival the depth of humanity of Beethoven is his Requiem, which wasn't even finished by him anyway.
> 
> I'm always struck by the number of on-line music forum members who make such judgments concerning Mozart's apparent lack of emotional depth. Of course such a judgment is to be expected considering the preference for Romanticism as a whole, as opposed to almost any other musical movement. I personally fall in with the thoughts of Oscar Wilde who suggested in his preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray: _"The artist is the creator of beautiful things... All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."_
> 
> There is no more of less emotion or "meaning" in Mozart than in Beethoven. Whatever emotion or meaning is there is that which we (the audience) perceive. Beethoven uses a minor key more often and employs a greater contrast in dynamics. Thus he is more emotional? More tragic? As a visual artist I have a solid grasp of what elements to employ to convey drama and tragedy: a large contrast of light and dark (chiaroscuro) combined with a limited color range (and a use of black and red)... and throw in a heavy, profound subject, such as death, and I am assured of inspiring a certain emotional response. But does this make the work better or worse than that of an artist such as Monet who employs joyful colors and subjects drawn from everyday life? Certainly not. If such were true, then would not an artist simply choose to employ "profound" subject matter and dark colors (or a minor key) in order to assure the profundity of the work?
> 
> It is easy to be seduced by our emotional responses to a work of art... by sentiment. But are these what makes for a better or worse work of art? Mozart worked in an era prior to Romanticism and Burke's essay on the Sublime and the notion that inspiring a "profound" emotional response to a work of art was the highest aspiration of the artist. Mozart's work, I would argue, is no less marvelous than Beethoven's. It is laden with wit, dazzlingly brilliant, daring in the manner in which he plays with the audience's expectations. Considering his operas alone, he is no less innovative than Beethoven. Nor is he without moments of that are the most touching and laden with emotion. He simply doesn't wallow in these. Such moments occur... as a sudden thought of mortality or loss in the midst of a glittering ballroom dance... and then he is off dancing again.
> 
> I don't mind comparisons in art, but like Andre, I do sense they are something of a waste of time. Art is not a heavy-weight bout: "And in this corner, wearing a powdered wig and weighing in at 192 pounds we have Johann Sebastian Bach!!!" Surely, there are better ways to discuss an artist's achievements?


This. I defy anyone to listen to the slow movement of K595 and tell me it lacks depth, emotion, tragedy, etc. Mozart's music is very subtle and expressive, but it isn't always explicitly so...


----------



## Couchie

Easily Beethoven:

- He went deaf
- He was more german
- He had better 'I-don't-give-a-damn" hair
- He lived longer
- People attended his funeral
- It only took him 3 tries, not 40, to write a good symphony
- The word 'oven' is in his name. The word 'art' is in Mozart's name: _pretentious_.
- It's well known that Mozart had _no_ influence on Beethoven
- I like Beethoven a lot
- BEETHOVEN!


----------



## Kieran

Couchie said:


> Easily Beethoven:
> 
> - He went deaf
> - He was more german
> - He had better 'I-don't-give-a-damn" hair
> - He lived longer
> - People attended his funeral
> - It only took him 3 tries, not 40, to write a good symphony
> - The word 'oven' is in his name. The word 'art' is in Mozart's name: _pretentious_.
> - It's well known that Mozart had _no_ influence on Beethoven
> - I like Beethoven a lot
> - BEETHOVEN!


:lol::tiphat:


----------



## TxllxT

Mozart versus Beethoven
Mozart versus Salieri
-----------------------------
Beethoven = Salieri


----------



## Meaghan

Couchie said:


> Easily Beethoven:
> ...
> - He had better 'I-don't-give-a-damn" hair


I dunno, there is that pink wig in _Amadeus_ (which everybody knows is a highly accurate documentary film, so Mozart _must_ have worn one).

But maybe that's actually "I-care-very-much-about-my-hair" hair.


----------



## Serge

Meaghan said:


> I dunno, there is that pink wig in _Amadeus_ (which everybody knows is a highly accurate documentary film, so Mozart _must_ have worn one).


Ha! Mozart in a pink wig… The ladies must have been all over him! (Just like they are now over this music.)


----------



## kv466

I think all those reasons listed are, if anything, reasons why Ludwig van is 'better'...I don't even like to compare these two for no matter what their musical styles,...they were entirely different people altogether....for me, W.A. had a gift like no one else ever while Beethoven was a true composer, working out the music and dealing more in feeling and emotion...anyway


----------



## crmoorhead

I can't be much of a judge yet since my music collection is short on Mozart and heavy on Beethoven. I have the Requiem, naturally, an Oboe Concerto and a half dozen Piano Concertos. The only one I have listened to a lot (20+ times) is the Requiem. I have listened to some of the Beethoven Symphonies 40-50 times. I don't have anything against Mozart - I just want to wait until I have the time to really get into him in-depth. One point that I will make, however, is that Mozart's OPERAS are a lot more popular/better than Beethoven's. 

Perspnally, I don't mind these posts too much as long as they promote intelligent discussion. My only complaint is that they might be slightly redundant to anyone who knows more than a little about classical music. We all know where the differences are and that its all just personal taste.

I also think that the anti-Mozartism is more of a rebellion against convention. Mozart was, unequivocally, a genius who died young. People identify with Beethoven more because he was more human where Mozart was a kind of strange and alien creature. Its a perception of the men as well as their music.


----------



## crmoorhead

mcamacho said:


> I think all those reasons listed are, if anything, reasons why Ludwig van is 'better'...I don't even like to compare these two for no matter what their musical styles,...they were entirely different people altogether....for me, W.A. had a gift like no one else ever while Beethoven was a true composer, working out the music and dealing more in feeling and emotion...anyway


I agree. It is hard not to be blown away by Mozart's sheer talent. He wrote concertos for every instrument that existed at the time and 30 symphonies by the time he was 20. Comparing Beethoven with regard to Mozart, you would be looking at works by Beethoven before the date 1805. All that says, however, is that Mozart was way more prolific and that he was firmly Classical. Beethoven has, IMO, a much deeper body of work simply because he had a longer carreer. It is said that melody poured out of Mozart, whereas Beethoven really toiled over his. Both men had a different approach, different histories, worked in different time periods and had different temperaments. It is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Curiosity

Kieran said:


> Had Beethoven died aged 35, this wouldn't even be a topic.
> 
> Mozart. He composed more of everything - and his operas _own_...but I like Ludwig too! :tiphat:


I'd say the Eroica symphony and the Appassionata and Waldstein sonatas beat anything Mozart ever composed. Hell, if Beethoven had died at 35 it's likely that the Appassionata would be viewed as the greatest piano composition of them all and the Eroica the greatest symphony...


----------



## TxllxT

crmoorhead said:


> I also think that the anti-Mozartism is more of a rebellion against convention. Mozart was, unequivocally, a genius who died young. People identify with Beethoven more because he was more human where Mozart was a kind of strange and alien creature. Its a perception of the men as well as their music.


When I understand the point well, you do not equal Mozart with convention  'genius', 'strange', 'alien') but indirectly you do: " the anti-Mozartism is more of a rebellion against convention".  Also to call such a morose person as Beethoven was "more human" leaves me


----------



## Whipsnade

I'd be interested to know what forum that is. Maybe it has a different orientation to this one which really seems to focus on taste as opposed to content issues.


----------



## Kieran

Curiosity said:


> I'd say the Eroica symphony and the Appassionata and Waldstein sonatas beat anything Mozart ever composed. Hell, if Beethoven had died at 35 it's likely that the Appassionata would be viewed as the greatest piano composition of them all and the Eroica the greatest symphony...


Wouldn't have stacked up against Mozart's output. Mozart quit composing symphonies aged 32 - because no-one asked for more - and by that age Beethoven had only his first two. Mozart's operas alone set him in a different league to Beethoven.

Beethoven aged 35 versus Wolfgang aged 35 is a rout for the kid from Salzburg. But one (other) great loss for music in Mozart's early death is that they never got the chance to meet. In 1792, the great Beethoven travelled to Vienna to study with Haydn. Most likely he'd have studied with Mozart, had he lived. The course of music history from there on might have been different. Who knows? Either way, I think Mozart may have taught Beethoven a lot...


----------



## Kieran

TxllxT said:


> Mozart versus Beethoven
> Mozart versus Salieri
> -----------------------------
> Beethoven = Salieri


This captures it exactly! :lol:


----------



## crmoorhead

TxllxT said:


> When I understand the point well, you do not equal Mozart with convention  'genius', 'strange', 'alien') but indirectly you do: " the anti-Mozartism is more of a rebellion against convention".  Also to call such a morose person as Beethoven was "more human" leaves me


Well, they aren't mutually exclusive comments. The convention that anti-Mozart clique would reject is that 'Mozart is one of the top 3 composers that ever lived'. That is a completely independent concept to whether he was a conventional person or not. He was not, and neither was Beethoven. They were both geniuses; they were both eccentric. The essence of my point is that I believe that people find it EASIER to reject Mozart than Beethoven because of the differences in how the two men are generally percieved.

I call Beethoven more human because his 'morose' nature, his struggle against the adversity of deafness and his troubled childhood are all part of what made him great. Beethoven wrote and rewrote his melodies many times to perfect them. To err is human. He was a man of intense passions and people are inspired by his story. The moral of that story is that adversity is something to be overcome.

Contrast that with Mozart. Mozart's genius seemed to pour forth from him. He was a child prodigy who composed from the age of three. It is generally the impression that he did what he did effortlessly. His output, when set in comparison with Beethoven, is mindboggling both in terms of its quantity and how early in his life he composed it. Mozart wrote music for anything and everything and did so with astounding results. It is hard to understand what made Mozart tick. While he may be an awe inspiring character, I don't know if he is inspiring in terms of his story or what the moral of his life story might be.

Musically, I think both men are different but both highly deserving of their long acknowledged places among the top 3 composers that ever lived.


----------



## jurianbai

http://www.google.com/trends?q=beethoven,mozart

red=mozart blue=beethoven


----------



## PhillipPark

jurianbai said:


> http://www.google.com/trends?q=beethoven,mozart
> 
> red=mozart blue=beethoven


Are you implying that popularity=quality?

I honestly am not particularly infatuated with Mozart or Beethoven's works (the more contemporary music suits my palate), however, I am quite familiar with both composers and their music and don't believe they can be compared.

I would liken Mozart's music, to a good Blockbuster movie, while Beethoven's to a low budget art film with a strong message.


----------



## science

I love this topic. (No sarcasm, though I see that other people's sarcasm has been taken seriously.)

It's not interesting to weigh them against each other to seek "greatness," but it is interesting to think about differences in their style, their impact and influence, and so on. 

One interesting aspect of it to me is effort. Mozart seemed to be able, once he was in his 20s, to wake up with a hangover and, between cups of coffee, create a masterpiece on the first draft. He seemed to be the genius without effort. But Beethoven worked for it, draft after draft after draft. People think they can hear it in their music. 

But actually I think a lot of it is marketing. Mozart studied just as much as Beethoven did. 

Both of them died too young, but IMO we lost more greatness from Mozart's death. Who knows where Beethoven would've gone if he'd lived longer, but I really wish we'd been able to see how Mozart would've responded to Beethoven's middle period.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I really wish we'd been able to see how Mozart would've responded to Beethoven's middle period.

Hell the possibilities are mind-boggling if one only considers what might have been had Mozart traveled to London with Haydn. How would he have responded to Handel as well as to Haydn's late symphonies and choral works? What might he done with opera in London?


----------



## Sid James

*@ stlukes* - Yes, it would have been interesting to see (or rather hear!) what Mozart would have done had he lived longer & settled elsewhere. Towards the end of his life, Mozart was actually offered the position of kapellmeister at the court in Berlin, but turned it down (he was kind of rooted in Vienna, all of his connections were there). & also as I read, his lyricist Da Ponte actually relocated in London (or at least worked there for a while?) & it would've been equally interesting how their partnership may have continued in the UK, creating (as you suggest) strong currents and eddies in the musical world/life there, just like Handel had a few generations before.

*@ science* - I remember reading an extract from one of the many letters Mozart wrote to his father, Leopold. & Mozart actually wrote that, despite the image that he garnered as a kind of effortless genius (eg. dashing off works on route to somewhere in a carriage, stuff like that) he said it often took him great effort and labour to produce his masterpieces. Same thing with Schubert, we have this romanticised image of him dashing off a song on a napkin or something to poetry just given to him at a cafe by one of his many poet friends, but was this common, I wonder (or a myth?). Berlioz also wrote in his memoirs that he composed a lot of his opera _La Damnation de Faust _during his travels between cities, to gigs as guest conductor in these places, far and wide, traversing the whole European continent. But are this guy's memoirs reliable? Judging from his fantastical works (to coin the title of his great symphony) can this guy's memoirs be trusted, or are they just a kind of "hyping up," a romanticisation of the reality & sheer drudgery of sitting at a desk at home for hours or days on end meticulously honing a masterpiece to perfection? I sometimes wonder about these things...


----------



## Stasou

Something I heard the other day: "I don't like Mozart because everything he wrote sounds the same."
Beethoven was more innovative than Mozart, but that also means that his works were less consistent. If everything a composer writes is sublime but most/all of it sounds very similar, does that mean that the quality of the composer's works as a whole decreases? I don't see why it should. But I really can't possibly choose between the two.


----------



## science

I think that whoever thinks everything Mozart says sounds the same, hasn't listened enough. Maybe it does at first, but Symphony #40 is not the same as #41, and neither of them are Don Giovanni, and neither of them are the Turkish violin concerto, which isn't even the Turkish piano sonata, none of those are the Requiem, which isn't the Great Mass or the dissonance quartet.

There is a lot of diversity in Mozart, but perhaps it takes awhile to discover.


----------



## science

Sid James said:


> *@ stlukes* - Yes, it would have been interesting to see (or rather hear!) what Mozart would have done had he lived longer & settled elsewhere. Towards the end of his life, Mozart was actually offered the position of kapellmeister at the court in Berlin, but turned it down (he was kind of rooted in Vienna, all of his connections were there). & also as I read, his lyricist Da Ponte actually relocated in London (or at least worked there for a while?) & it would've been equally interesting how their partnership may have continued in the UK, creating (as you suggest) strong currents and eddies in the musical world/life there, just like Handel had a few generations before.
> 
> *@ science* - I remember reading an extract from one of the many letters Mozart wrote to his father, Leopold. & Mozart actually wrote that, despite the image that he garnered as a kind of effortless genius (eg. dashing off works on route to somewhere in a carriage, stuff like that) he said it often took him great effort and labour to produce his masterpieces. Same thing with Schubert, we have this romanticised image of him dashing off a song on a napkin or something to poetry just given to him at a cafe by one of his many poet friends, but was this common, I wonder (or a myth?). Berlioz also wrote in his memoirs that he composed a lot of his opera _La Damnation de Faust _during his travels between cities, to gigs as guest conductor in these places, far and wide, traversing the whole European continent. But are this guy's memoirs reliable? Judging from his fantastical works (to coin the title of his great symphony) can this guy's memoirs be trusted, or are they just a kind of "hyping up," a romanticisation of the reality & sheer drudgery of sitting at a desk at home for hours or days on end meticulously honing a masterpiece to perfection? I sometimes wonder about these things...


That's right.

I think there is genius involved, or at least immense levels of talent, that I can only envy, not comprehend. But it's like everything else (chess, mathematics, physics, athletics, etc.): the really great ones are those with immense talent _and also work hard_.


----------



## Stasou

Surely I'm not saying I agree with the person. I'm saying that it's not quite as diverse as Beethoven's music. Nor am I saying that less diversity is a bad thing.


----------



## PhillipPark

Stasou said:


> Something I heard the other day: "I don't like Mozart because everything he wrote sounds the same."
> Beethoven was more innovative than Mozart, but that also means that his works were less consistent. If everything a composer writes is sublime but most/all of it sounds very similar, does that mean that the quality of the composer's works as a whole decreases? I don't see why it should. But I really can't possibly choose between the two.


As a composer: my opinion on the matter is that the ideal is to establish a recognizable voice while consistently putting out fresh works.


----------



## Guest

Although Mozart died younger, Beethoven lost his hearing, which was also a significant loss. Although LvB continued to compose, I suspect he would have composed more and better works had he retained his hearing. No?


----------



## science

Stasou said:


> Surely I'm not saying I agree with the person. I'm saying that it's not quite as diverse as Beethoven's music. Nor am I saying that less diversity is a bad thing.


Makes me think of Vivaldi. Stravinsky (I think) said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. He was exaggerating, I'm sure he'd admit, but you can see what he was thinking...

In the Vivaldi v. Bach thread, I assume it wouldn't be close. Vivaldi v. Telemann would be fun.


----------



## violadude

BPS said:


> Although Mozart died younger, Beethoven lost his hearing, which was also a significant loss. Although LvB continued to compose, I suspect he would have composed more and better works had he retained his hearing. No?


Eh, I think his deafness influenced him in a way that made his pieces more profound. I don't think if he were able to hear that his music would be better.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Mozart died aged 35. Beethoven died aged 57. If Mozart died aged 57, then I'm sure music history would have taken a different turn. Giving Mozart an extra twenty years when he already matured with masterpieces at age 35 would enrich western music heritage beyond measure: the last half dozen or so consecutive complete operas are part of standard repertoire, likewise with the last dozen consecutive symphonies, the last dozen piano concertos, the last half dozen string quartets; all part of standard repertoire from one who died age 35. How many more consecutive masterpieces in these genres could we imagine from him if he died in 1813 aged 57? The death of Mozart at age 35 in my opinion, is music's greatest tragedy.

Beethoven had a relatively long life; 57 years was not bad for those days, and so he had the time to develop it all. If Beethoven died aged 35, then what would we have missed out? Well, you can do the list. One hell of a lot of stuff, indeed ... 

Just the same, Haydn had a long illustrious career to craft the Classical symphony for example from chamber scale for private performances behind closed doors to large scale public symphonies in London. Haydn died aged 77 with all the late symphonies, chamber music and choral masterpieces all under his belt. If he too, died at age 35?

Yeah, by the way, Mozart sux and Black Sabbath rules ... as some say ....


----------



## Kieran

In a fantasy world where Mozart gets another - say - ten years, he teaches Beethoven in Vienna in 1792, he composes piano sonatas for this dazzling student - music the likes of which had never been heard before, tailored to suit the young man's style and temperament - and Beethoven's first set of String Quartets are dedicated to Mozart instead of Haydn.

I think the direction of western music might have been different, and maybe Mozart would have been influenced by the prevailing revolutionary trends in the late-18th century, and Beethoven might have learned opera-composition from the maestro.

It's a fantasy, but it's a tantalising one. Their lives over-lapped, but they didn't meet! It seems likely that maybe Beethoven heard Mozart perform in Vienna in 1787, butit's not certain. 

I agree that Mozart's early death was the greatest loss for music, but doesn't his life seem strangely complete, too? His output is still gigantic, and he ticked off all the boxes so many times.

There's something even more lonely and tragic about Beethoven's later years. His isolation was so profound that this is most likely why his music would have been so strange for that time. Had he not gone deaf, he may not have composed such troubled masterpieces...


----------



## science

To me, the worst part is that Mozart didn't get to play around with a more modern piano. Had he lived even another decade, let alone two or three more, the pianos available to him would've been much better, and I'd love to hear the sonatas he'd have written. 

I read somewhere something about Chopin showing us what the piano is supposed to sound like, and that's about right, but it's fair to remember that Haydn and Mozart didn't have Chopin's pianos, and if they had, I don't think we'd have had to wait for Chopin. 

What a world though. Makes me grateful for the music we have got. Haydn's and Mozart's piano sonatas deserve a little more attention. Next time you're sitting around thinking you've about heard it all and you're bored of the music you own, break into the piggy bank and get yourself Uchida's set of Mozart's piano sonatas. That'll keep you happy for a few days.


----------



## science

violadude said:


> Eh, I think his deafness influenced him in a way that made his pieces more profound. I don't think if he were able to hear that his music would be better.


I've wondered about that. It's tough to say one way or the other, but I've sometimes thought that Beethoven might've been more conservative in his later years if he hadn't've lost his hearing.


----------



## Webernite

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Hell the possibilities are mind-boggling if one only considers what might have been had Mozart traveled to London with Haydn. How would he have responded to Handel as well as to Haydn's late symphonies and choral works? What might he done with opera in London?


Mozart already knew Handel's _Messiah_ and many of the keyboard works.

Just sayin'.


----------



## kv466




----------



## Kieran

kv466 said:


>


I'll go with bust:


----------



## Serge

From this point of view, both are pretty cool.


----------



## Nix

If we're doing the 'compare genre' method:

Orchestral: Beethoven (by a large margin)
Concerti: Mozart (by a small margin)
Opera: Mozart (by a large margin)
Chamber: Beethoven (by a small margin)
Choral: Mozart (by a small margin)

And unfair as it may seem, I place less value on vocal music- I've always thought of it as 'second-hand emotions.' That is, they're the composers reaction to someone else's troubles. Whereas absolute music comes from the composer himself. So Beethoven! But I really do love Mozart.


----------



## Webernite

Nix said:


> Orchestral: Beethoven (by a large margin)


Generally speaking I prefer Mozart's mature symphonies to Beethoven's. But I admit, Beethoven's are a lot more ambitious.


----------



## Oskaar

I am quite new to classical music, but I have found out one thing. The music I prefer listening to is very dependent on my mood, and weather! There may be other parameters to.. Mozart and Beethoven are both so wonderful composers...they should not be set up against each other.

Beethoven may be more challenging and deep, but in the next moment I find that also untrue. Mozart has a lot of depth....but I am as I said....quite new, and have an ocean to listen to! Luckily I have spotify (who should launch in usa these days? Finaly agrement with record companies I think?)


----------



## samurai

oskaar said:


> I am quite new to classical music, but I have found out one thing. The music I prefer listening to is very dependent on my mood, and weather! There may be other parameters to.. Mozart and Beethoven are both so wonderful composers...they should not be set up against each other.
> 
> Beethoven may be more challenging and deep, but in the next moment I find that also untrue. Mozart has a lot of depth....but I am as I said....quite new, and have an ocean to listen to! Luckily I have spotify (who should launch in usa these days? Finaly agrement with record companies I think?)


@Oskaar, Please let those of us who are in America know--if and when you find out--when spotify is supposed to begin here. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and would like to use it, depending on its monthly cost, of course. Thanks!


----------



## Kieran

Nix said:


> If we're doing the 'compare genre' method:
> 
> Concerti: Mozart (by a small margin)


You're kidding, right? Beethoven's half dozen or so concerti stack up against Mozart 50 plus? Where are his wind concerti? Mozart's range and grasp here are unparalleled. That's why I'd have them at least level in instrumental music, but Wolfgang's operas send him into a completely different stratosphere.

And I do like Beethoven, but I'm in awe of Mozart. Only Shakespeare and Michaelangelo compare for me, for the completeness of their technical and expressive reach...


----------



## Oskaar

samurai said:


> @Oskaar, Please let those of us who are in America know--if and when you find out--when spotify is supposed to begin here. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and would like to use it, depending on its monthly cost, of course. Thanks!


I have searched the net, and it should be one of these days... some final contracts must be signed. check it out yourself, I will give you link to homepage. Spotify is imeinent...I dont know the terms of use when it is launched in america, but if you need invitation (needed in europe for the free version earlier at least) then I have. I pay about 13 dollars a month for millions of songs, and a very good libtary in classical music.


----------



## Oskaar

oskaar said:


> I pay about 13 dollars a month for millions of songs, and a very good libtary in classical music.


Wheb I pay for premium...No advertising, double speed, mobile use


----------



## Oskaar

http://www.spotify.com/


----------



## samurai

oskaar said:


> http://www.spotify.com/


@Oskaar, I just went to this site and registered to get my "invite". To all my fellow American members who are interested in receiving this service once it is here, that's all you have to do, at least at this point.
Thanks Again, Oskaar!


----------



## Nix

Kieran said:


> You're kidding, right? Beethoven's half dozen or so concerti stack up against Mozart 50 plus? Where are his wind concerti? Mozart's range and grasp here are unparalleled.


A lot of Mozart's concerti are from his earlier years, and really aren't all that inspired. The violin concerti are mostly tedious and simplistic, as are a lot of the early piano concerti. The horn, flute, and oboe concerti are likewise not Mozart at his best, just little ditties that he probably wrote in a couple of days.

There are maybe half a dozen of the piano concerti that rival Beethoven's last 3. Ultimately I think Mozart 20 is greater then all of them, but Beethoven 4 and 5 are better then the rest of Mozart's (which are still extremely good). The Clarinet Concerto is on par with Beethoven's Violin Concerto, (both pieces that take you on a sort of scenic journey whose ultimate goal is beauty), and the Triple Concerto is right there with Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante... all in my opinion of course.

Mozart gets the edge on sheer volume, but Beethoven is a close competitor with the quality of the few works he has.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There's something even more lonely and tragic about Beethoven's later years. His isolation was so profound that this is most likely why his music would have been so strange for that time. Had he not gone deaf, he may not have composed such troubled masterpieces...

Yes. My first thought is that Beethoven would have composed far more piano concertos... a genre that would allow him to display his virtuosity... and a genre that would have likely been less introverted and experimental than his string quartets.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Science- Makes me think of Vivaldi. Stravinsky (I think) said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 500 times. He was exaggerating, I'm sure he'd admit, but you can see what he was thinking...

In the Vivaldi v. Bach thread, I assume it wouldn't be close. Vivaldi v. Telemann would be fun.

There's a great little book by the brilliant Latin-American writer, Alejo Carpentier, in which the author, imagines a meeting of Handel, Vivaldi, and Stravinsky. Stravinsky makes his crack about Vivaldi only writing the same single concerto 300 times, to which Vivaldi replies, "At least I never lowered myself to composing background music for puppet shows.":lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Webernite- Mozart already knew Handel's Messiah and many of the keyboard works.

Just sayin'.

Yes... but I'm thinking of how Haydn was influenced by his experience of London including Handel. The orchestras, choirs, and operas of England were far beyond the abilities of anything Haydn had experienced at the Esterhazy court and pushed him to think about symphonies, operas, and choral music on a far grander scale. What I have read of his contact with Handel's music in London spoke to the notion of Handel's brilliance as a composer of opera and oratorios... as well as to the idea musical "immortality". Handel's music was still alive and being regularly performed... whereas a composer as great as Bach was all but forgotten... at least in performance. The notion that one's music might survive... and continue to be performed before admiring audiences after one's death had a profound impact upon Haydn... especially with regard to his oratorio, the _Creation_.

What I was wondering was just how such an idea... the notion of the possibility of one's music continuing as part of a living tradition... as opposed to its value as little more than a temporal entertainment... and the access to orchestras, and operas able to properly present such a tradition... might have had an impact on Mozart similar to that upon Haydn.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart's Bust:










Wolfgang wins again.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Nix- And unfair as it may seem, I place less value on vocal music- I've always thought of it as 'second-hand emotions.' That is, they're the composers reaction to someone else's troubles.

What!!??!!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I do like Beethoven, but I'm in awe of Mozart. Only Shakespeare and Michaelangelo compare for me, for the completeness of their technical and expressive reach...

Bach, my son, Bach!!!


----------



## Nix

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Nix- And unfair as it may seem, I place less value on vocal music- I've always thought of it as 'second-hand emotions.' That is, they're the composers reaction to someone else's troubles.
> 
> What!!??!!


I know, I know... it's something I only admit with the anonymity of the internet, as I wouldn't want to insult my vocal major friends. But I feel like the point of music is to express yourself in a way that can't be described in words, and lyrics kinda contradict that. I prefer not to be so blatantly told what a composer is trying to express (I also have a distaste for program music). That said, Tristan und Isolde, Die Schoene Mullerin, Mahler 2, Beethoven 9, The Missa Solemnis... all works that I love dearly.


----------



## Kieran

Nix said:


> But I feel like the point of music is to express yourself in a way that can't be described in words, and lyrics kinda contradict that. I prefer not to be so blatantly told what a composer is trying to express


This is interesting. Beethoven is quite explicit in his moods, so even in great piano works, we're being told more or less what he wants to express. The musical language isn't quite so obscured from us. Or alien to us. To me, the purpose of music is to inspire us, take us away, but not necessarily to include the composers own view of the world.

But the lyrics of classical songs and operas don't necessarily describe the music. Sometimes they even contradict it, with hilarious results. I'm thinking of Mozart again here, and his comedy operas. Often he can also use music as a way of showing how false a characters intentions are. It's ingenious.

By the way, Samuel Beckett had the same view as yours. Not everyone likes operatic music. Beckett considered it to be akin to falsehood. Mozart - or Wagner - would have disagreed. Theatrical music is as old as the hills. It's not to everyone's taste - yours included - but there's little doubt that drama exposed through music and words is quite a heightened and moving art-form...


----------



## Kieran

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart's Bust:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolfgang wins again.


Yummy! :tiphat:


----------



## Kieran

Nix said:


> A lot of Mozart's concerti are from his earlier years, and really aren't all that inspired. The violin concerti are mostly tedious and simplistic, as are a lot of the early piano concerti. The horn, flute, and oboe concerti are likewise not Mozart at his best, just little ditties that he probably wrote in a couple of days.
> 
> There are maybe half a dozen of the piano concerti that rival Beethoven's last 3. Ultimately I think Mozart 20 is greater then all of them, but Beethoven 4 and 5 are better then the rest of Mozart's (which are still extremely good). The Clarinet Concerto is on par with Beethoven's Violin Concerto, (both pieces that take you on a sort of scenic journey whose ultimate goal is beauty), and the Triple Concerto is right there with Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante... all in my opinion of course.
> 
> Mozart gets the edge on sheer volume, but Beethoven is a close competitor with the quality of the few works he has.


Ah, Mozart's 9th and 10th piano concerti are incredible. Alfred Brendel, no less, considers the ninth to be one of the great wonders of the world. You can chart the history of the piano concerto just by listening to Mozart's work. From its chamber music beginnings, to its full flowering with an orchestra. The summit of concerto composition is in there somewhere, but is it the 20th? The 21st? 24th? It's a genre he more or less invented and perfected and Ludwig composed based on Mozart's model.

It's true a lot of Mozart's concerti are the product of youth, but really, he was ahead of his time, and he composed concerti of all types, for all instruments, including prodigious works for wind and violin. I agree that Beethoven's smaller output is incredible, and we're blessed to have both :tiphat: , but there's so much more to discover in Mozart's. Lately, for example, I'm listening to his concerto for harp and flute. Gorgeous! 

:tiphat:


----------



## TxllxT

Beethoven inserted the _Ode an die Freude_ (Ode to Joy) in his 9th Symphony (1824). But really, who gets *joy *out of this muffy burning of incense, this stifling deification of massive choirsinging that tries to infest one like a hundredheaded hydra? I detest this 19th century religiousness to which Beethoven paid his scrooching tribute, for which he then gathered all those eternal extolments. When I listen to Mozart, sheer joy enters my heart. No frills, no idolisation, just enjoy.


----------



## Kieran

TxllxT said:


> Beethoven inserted the _Ode an die Freude_ (Ode to Joy) in his 9th Symphony (1824). But really, who gets *joy *out of this muffy burning of incense, this stifling deification of massive choirsinging that tries to infest one like a hundredheaded hydra? I detest this 19th century religiousness to which Beethoven paid his scrooching tribute, for which he then gathered all those eternal extolments. When I listen to Mozart, sheer joy enters my heart. No frills, no idolisation, just enjoy.


Have a listen to this, about 55 seconds in. I think it must be coincidence, but it's an interesting one.

Same music Beethoven uses as a choral piece in a (usually) instrumental work, Mozart uses as an instrumental piece, etc...


----------



## Nix

Kieran said:


> It's a genre he more or less invented and perfected and Ludwig composed based on Mozart's model.


At first yes, but Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concerti (particularly the 4th) is a mile away from what Mozart was doing.


----------



## Nix

Kieran said:


> This is interesting. Beethoven is quite explicit in his moods, so even in great piano works, we're being told more or less what he wants to express. The musical language isn't quite so obscured from us.


Oh I agree, though I don't think it's as simple as that. There's a difference between someone telling you "I'm sad" and someone writing music that expresses sadness. In the latter we actually _feel_ what they feel, and the music usually can't just be described in one word- which is often times what lyrics do. I'm sure there have been plenty of times where you can't explain to a friend the way you're feeling, or you get lost in the complications of it. I think music is that outlet, the way to express exactly what it is your feeling. And the wonderful part is that as a listener we don't have to interpret it the same way the composer does, because of course everyone reacts differently to certain situations. I feel that lyrics and programs put the listener in a box.


----------



## presto

I personally have to say Mozart, because time and time again he emotionally moves me far more than Beethoven does.


----------



## Kieran

Nix said:


> At first yes, but Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concerti (particularly the 4th) is a mile away from what Mozart was doing.


But this would be natural. Mozart's major concerti are a mile away from the previous step in the genre. Beethoven was a genius and he went a different direction, in symphonies too. Other composers went further based on what they heard previously.

But this doesn't make Beethoven a better concerto composer than - or even close to - Mozart, whose shoulders he needed to stand on, and who composed concerti for practically every major instrument. In the space of about 4 weeks Mozart composed his 20th and 21st. I mean, that's just ridiculous!:tiphat:


----------



## trazom

Kieran said:


> In the space of about 4 weeks Mozart composed his 20th and 21st. I mean, that's just ridiculous!:tiphat:


He also composed, at 32 years old, his last 3 and most advanced symphonies in a period of 6 weeks all while working on two piano trios, the sonata facile, and a violin sonatina. No big deal, really; just trying to make ends meet is all...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Originally Posted by Nix 
At first yes, but Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concerti (particularly the 4th) is a mile away from what Mozart was doing.

But this would be natural. Mozart's major concerti are a mile away from the previous step in the genre. Beethoven was a genius and he went a different direction, in symphonies too. Other composers went further based on what they heard previously.

In other words... art isn't like science in which the average medical student today knows more about the human body and disease than the greatest doctors of 400 years ago. Like science, art builds upon the achievements of the artist's predecessors... but the result isn't better... but different. Mozart's concertos are no less removed from those of Bach and other predecessors than Beethoven's are removed from Mozart and Haydn's... but this does not mean they are "better". In some instances they may be. Beethoven's 3rd and 9th symphonies probably surpass anything Mozart achieved in the symphonic form. But one might just as easily argue that Mozart's clarinet quintet, clarinet concerto, or certain of his piano concertos surpass almost anything Beethoven achieved in the concerto format.


----------



## Klavierspieler

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I belong to a musical forum in which most of the contributors believe that Mozart was a greater composer than Beethoven. They mostly cite reasons to do with elegance, restraint, ethereal qualities, ineffable beauty etc., and suggest Beethoven wore his heart on his sleeve and was often too dramatic. What do people think? I prefer Beethoven over all others, but I want the opinion of others too. Thanks.


Actually, I tend to dislike Mozart because I find him too restrained and elegant; I enjoy Beethoven because he pounds out the Drama and Pathos.


----------



## CaptainAzure

Without Mozart there would be know Beethoven (at least not the way we know him today)


----------



## Nix

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Originally Posted by Nix
> At first yes, but Beethoven's 4th and 5th piano concerti (particularly the 4th) is a mile away from what Mozart was doing.
> 
> But this would be natural. Mozart's major concerti are a mile away from the previous step in the genre. Beethoven was a genius and he went a different direction, in symphonies too. Other composers went further based on what they heard previously.
> 
> In other words... art isn't like science in which the average medical student today knows more about the human body and disease than the greatest doctors of 400 years ago. Like science, art builds upon the achievements of the artist's predecessors... but the result isn't better... but different. Mozart's concertos are no less removed from those of Bach and other predecessors than Beethoven's are removed from Mozart and Haydn's... but this does not mean they are "better". In some instances they may be. Beethoven's 3rd and 9th symphonies probably surpass anything Mozart achieved in the symphonic form. But one might just as easily argue that Mozart's clarinet quintet, clarinet concerto, or certain of his piano concertos surpass almost anything Beethoven achieved in the concerto format.


Just to be clear, I never meant to suggest that because Beethoven's concerti are more advanced made them better. I was just saying that both of them innovated the genre, so you can't really give either one the 'edge' when it comes to innovation.


----------



## Laudemont

*Great and Not-Quite-Great in Both*

Mozart's quick genius and Beethoven's dogged, persistent genius both produced captivating, enduring works. But each composer has his high points, within his complete oevre. (Two centuries later the question of what one of them might have done if he had a longer, or shorter, life span is irrelevant.) I happen to be partial to orchestral works and am not greatly familiar with these composers' chamber or choral compositions. But I would not want to be without certain symphonies or concerti of either composer. For Mozart, Piano Concerto No. 20 (K.466) and Symphonies 34, 36, 41 (to name a few) are favorites. As to Beethoven, Piano Concerto No. 5 is a favorite. His symphonies are so different from one another it is hard to choose between them although I gravitate to Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (but definitely not the 9th). The list goes on, of course.

In sum, I think this "which-is-better" discussion is a little silly, because both composers have immeasurably enriched the repertoire. But there are other composers who are worthy of note (pun intended) and are seldom mentioned, especially some who come along later like Alberic Magnard and Franz Schmidt.


----------



## Comistra

CaptainAzure said:


> Without Mozart there would be know Beethoven (at least not the way we know him today)


This is undoubtedly true, but I don't think it says anything meaningful in the Mozart v. Beethoven debate. After all, with no Haydn, there's no Mozart, but that doesn't mean Haydn is superior to Mozart (nor that he isn't, of course).

If accumulated influence were the most appropriate way to judge composers, the best ever would be the first caveman who banged two rocks together in a rhythmic fashion.


----------



## Art Rock

Symphonies: have to hand to to Ludwig here. The Mozart symphonies, even the msot famous ones, never really strucka chord with me, whereas the 5th and 6th, and to a lesser extent the 3d and 7th, do. The Pastoral is one of my favourite symphonies.

Concertos: for the piano concertos, I hand it to Mozart, both in quantity of quality (about 10 of them are real masterpieces versus Beethoven's last three) and best (Mozart 20). Beethoven's violin concerto is far superior over the 5 Mozart ones though. What clinches it for Mozart is the other concertos. I don't like Beethoven's Triple concerto, and Mozart has several gems in his wind concerto, first and foremost my favourite concerto of all time (clarinet).

Other orchestral works: Mozart, for his many serenades and sinfionia concertante.

Chamber music: tie. Beethoven has a slight edge in string quartets and violin sonatas, but Mozart can field a gem like the clarinet quintet, and several other works.

Piano music: have to give this to Beethoven. Some of the best piano sonatas of all time.

Vocal music: I am not a big opera fan, but Mozart undoubtedly wins on that front. I also prefer the Requiem over the Missa Solemnis.

All in all, Mozart over Beethoven. Both would end up in the #6-#20 range of my favourite composers.


----------



## CaptainAzure

Comistra said:


> This is undoubtedly true, but I don't think it says anything meaningful in the Mozart v. Beethoven debate. After all, with no Haydn, there's no Mozart, but that doesn't mean Haydn is superior to Mozart (nor that he isn't, of course).
> 
> If accumulated influence were the most appropriate way to judge composers, the best ever would be the first caveman who banged two rocks together in a rhythmic fashion.


I can't believe I typed 'know' instead of 'no'

I think it would be fairer to say that without Haydn there would not be 41 spectacular Mozart symphonies and his string quartets would not be what they are. Mozart met Haydn when he was 28 just 7 years before his death. Now I know you don't have to be physically in the company of another composer to feel the benefit of his influence but Mozart had already written over 400 of his works by the time he made Haydn's acquaintance.

haydn was certainly IMO more influential on the direction Beethoven took with his composition than Mozart.


----------



## Curiosity

Art Rock said:


> Symphonies: have to hand to to Ludwig here. The Mozart symphonies, even the msot famous ones, never really strucka chord with me, whereas the 5th and 6th, and to a lesser extent the 3d and 7th, do. The Pastoral is one of my favourite symphonies.
> 
> Concertos: for the piano concertos, I hand it to Mozart, both in quantity of quality (about 10 of them are real masterpieces versus Beethoven's last three) and best (Mozart 20). Beethoven's violin concerto is far superior over the 5 Mozart ones though. What clinches it for Mozart is the other concertos. I don't like Beethoven's Triple concerto, and Mozart has several gems in his wind concerto, first and foremost my favourite concerto of all time (clarinet).
> 
> Other orchestral works: Mozart, for his many serenades and sinfionia concertante.
> 
> Chamber music: tie. Beethoven has a slight edge in string quartets and violin sonatas, but Mozart can field a gem like the clarinet quintet, and several other works.
> 
> Piano music: have to give this to Beethoven. Some of the best piano sonatas of all time.
> 
> Vocal music: I am not a big opera fan, but Mozart undoubtedly wins on that front. I also prefer the Requiem over the Missa Solemnis.
> 
> All in all, Mozart over Beethoven. Both would end up in the #6-#20 range of my favourite composers.


_Slight_ edge in string quartets?


----------



## science

I realize that Beethoven is the god of string quartets (maybe he shares the chair with Haydn) but Mozart wrote some doozies.

Plus, he wrote a couple of string quintets that don't have to apologize to anything in the catalog.


----------



## science

If I break it down, I'd agree with Art Rock more or less, though I think I'd give Mozart a bigger edge in 

- chamber music: considering the string quintets, but we shouldn't neglect Beethoven's piano trios; 
- concertos: considering also the horn concertos, though I am a huge fan of the double concerto, experts and critics be darned; 
- choral music: love the Requiem and love the Great Mass and the Ave verum corpus and other works, but though it's been growing on me I'm still almost indifferent to the Missa Solemnis. 

There are 4 Mozart symphonies that I seem to like more than he does: the little G minor, the Prague, 40 and 41; but still Beethoven gets the edge on symphonies for #3, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Though I'm not as big a fan of the 9th as many people, it is good, and the 3rd is very good too. 

Beethoven's dominance in the solo piano has something to do with the fact that he had a better instrument to work with. Mozart's piano sonatas are good and should not be ignored, but Beethoven's are a whole nother thing. 

Don't misunderstand me. Beethoven might even be my favorite composer. I love the Sturm und Drang. But Mozart is right up there in the mix without a doubt. It is hard for me to think of a mature work by either of them that I am very familiar with and don't enjoy. 

(This is the ignorant perspective of a musical amateur of course, not an expert.)


----------



## Guest

Well, I see I let the cat out of the bag with this one. Some truly ridiculous remarks, and also some good ones!! I grew tired of Mozart's piano concerti as they all sounded the same. Not saying he wasn't a wonderful composer and genius - he was certainly that. But Beethoven's five piano concerti: each one is completely different from the other. That's just a preference of mine. I'm also turned off by the porcelain figurine image of Mozart - some kind of refined elegance etched out in white porcelain (musically speaking). Shakespeare spoke about this kind of image in "Othello" when he was killing Desdemona: 'cold' and 'monumental alabaster". "Yet I'll not mar that whiter skin of hers than monumental alabaster".

Beethoven has been "accused" of emotional drama and excess: only a person who had listened to very few of his works could say this. It is very far from reality. Have a good day!


----------



## Curiosity

I'm in agreement with you. Beethoven brought something new to the table every time. Mozart's compositions are beautiful, but as far as I'm concerned, that's all they are. Beethoven's are beautiful, sad, angry, defiant, even disturbing and everything in between. He showed much more range of expression as a composer.


----------



## Guest

Thanks so much for that, Curiosity; your words might have come from my own heart and mouth. I was recently at Beethovenhaus, Bonn, and moved ineffably by the Graf piano, personal items, letters, codicil to the Will, compass, walking stick, autographed manuscripts, etc.. I love his music just so much and, at the moment, am fixed on Klavier Sonata No. 4 - such a beautiful second movement, and I want this played at my funeral. He was THE MAN, no doubt about it. Mozart is a wonderful composer - in his element in opera IMO - but cannot be compared to the revolutionary Beethoven. Those last 3 or 4 Klaviersonaten, Missa Solemnis, string quartets. What the hell was anyone expected to do musically after that!!!???


----------



## Meaghan

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> What the hell was anyone expected to do musically after that!!!???


Though I love lots of composers who came after Beethoven, whenever I _play_ Beethoven, this is how I usually feel immediately afterward. "Why did anyone bother writing anything else?" This always wears off, but it's the effect Beethoven has on me.


----------



## hocket

Mozart versus Beethoven?

I'd have thought it was a no brainer really. Mozart looks awfully slight in the pictures I've seen of him and then you've got to take Beethoven's notoriously bad temper into consideration. I doubt the young prodigy would last more than a few rounds.

Mind you, you've got to be more specific about the rules of engagement. Will the combatants be wrestling in mud? Will they be stripped and basted in oil? Are gouging and biting permitted? If weapons are allowed (musical instruments perhaps? Beethoven to opt for the cello against Mozart's flute) it could be a game changer...


----------



## violadude

hocket said:


> Mozart versus Beethoven?
> 
> I'd have thought it was a no brainer really. Mozart looks awfully slight in the pictures I've seen of him and then you've got to take Beethoven's notoriously bad temper into consideration. I doubt the young prodigy would last more than a few rounds.
> 
> Mind you, you've got to be more specific about the rules of engagement. Will the combatants be wrestling in mud? Will they be stripped and basted in oil? Are gouging and biting permitted? If weapons are allowed (musical instruments perhaps? Beethoven to opt for the cello against Mozart's flute) it could be a game changer...


Mozart's flute? All the accounts I've heard said Mozart hated the flute. He played viola though.


----------



## Guest

A shame that an interesting debate becomes lame through ignorant comments. Oh, well, that's the internet - the great democratiser, ignorant or not. Every idiot gets a say. (Yawn).


----------



## Curiosity

People want to avoid discussion of the main issue, which is that Beethoven is > Mozart objectively.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Considering this post and your post on Schubert's not being even a million miles from Beethoven, it would seem you might just be the last one to be able to offer anything approaching an objective viewpoint concerning Mozart vs Beethoven. 

Of course we'd all be interested in how you came to your "objective" evaluation.


----------



## trazom

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Of course we'd all be interested in how you came to your "objective" evaluation.


A year's worth of serious listening/exploration of classical music

Anyways, as I'm sure other posters have realized (judging the levity of their comments), this thread seems less like an honest attempt at discussion, rather fishing for similar opinions/ seeking affirmation of one's taste.


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Considering this post and your post on Schubert's not being even a million miles from Beethoven, it would seem you might just be the last one to be able to offer anything approaching an objective viewpoint concerning Mozart vs Beethoven.
> 
> Of course we'd all be interested in how you came to your "objective" evaluation.


Through listening with an open mind, brother. Uncoloured by "critical assessments" from the so-called "experts". Can't help it if Schubert sounds dull as dishwater to my ears. Sorry...


----------



## Curiosity

trazom said:


> A year's worth of serious listening/exploration of classical music
> 
> Anyways, as I'm sure other posters have realized (judging the levity of their comments), this thread seems less like an honest attempt at discussion, rather fishing for similar opinions/ seeking affirmation of one's taste.


Sigh, elitists, what can you do with them?


----------



## Guest

It's perfectly legitimate to say that you think Schubert is "dull as dish-water" (though this expression means you're showing your age!!). You don't need to write a PhD thesis to prove it either - that isn't the point of music forums like this one. But it is valid to ask people why they think one composer might be "greater" than another. People who dislike the question probably don't have the resources to answer it anyway. Just saying...


----------



## Curiosity

I'm actually 19. 

The "Beethoven > Mozart objectively" comment was tongue in cheek actually. Though honestly to my ears Beethoven did everything Mozart did but better, and then did more still.


----------



## Meaghan

Curiosity said:


> Though honestly to my ears Beethoven did everything Mozart did but better, and then did more still.


Except opera.


----------



## Curiosity

Eh, good point. I'm not the biggest fan of Opera admittedly. I've yet to listen to Fidelio or most of Mozart's operas properly myself, so my opinions are swayed perhaps by my bias for instrumental music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Of course we'd all be interested in how you came to your "objective" evaluation.

Through listening with an open mind, brother. Uncoloured by "critical assessments" from the so-called "experts". Can't help it if Schubert sounds dull as dishwater to my ears. Sorry...

How is that "objective"?

I'm not the biggest fan of Opera admittedly. I've yet to listen to Fidelio or most of Mozart's operas properly myself, so my opinions are swayed perhaps by my bias for instrumental music.

More "objectivity"? How do you make a comparison of composers if you aren't even familiar with the most important works in their oeuvre? _Fidelio_ is OK. Mozart's 4 great operas (Don Giovanni, Le Nozze di Figaro, Cosi fan tutte, and Die Zauberflote) all rank among the greatest operas ever composed. With Schubert it is his lieder that is at the core of his entire output.

Of course no one expects you to like something because the critics deem it great... but you might also recognize that your personal likes and dislikes aren't exactly the last word on artistic merit... let alone "objective". It is also possible that you tastes will change with experience. My favorite composer at 19 was probably Tchaikovsky... followed by Beethoven.


----------



## Guest

Stlukesguildohio, just a point ......no opinion is ever objective. Facts are objective; opinion is subjective. I just thought I'd straighten that out!!


----------



## science

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Stlukesguildohio, just a point ......no opinion is ever objective. Facts are objective; opinion is subjective. I just thought I'd straighten that out!!


----------



## hocket

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Just saying...


Now who's showing their age? There's really no need to be rude just because many people think this thread is worthy of satire. After all this is blatantly just another one of those 'who's the bestest composer in the whole universe ever?' threads, just with those pesky Bach cheerleaders left out. I particularly love it when these threads descend into comparisons of music that the protagonists didn't actually compose but _no doubt_ would've done if they hadn't died young or been deaf. I'm certainly not especially knowledgeable and come here to express enjoyment, discuss and offer opinions. Sadly I cannot aspire to such dazzling intellectual heights as 'Beethoven is THE MAN' but, just saying, in terms that should be in your language 'am I bothered?'


----------



## Nicola

trazom said:


> A year's worth of serious listening/exploration of classical music


If only that were the case, but I doubt it. It looks more like an over-focused concentration on the music of Beethoven. How more "newbie" can anyone get?


----------



## Fuga42

Mozart?...hmmmm...Beethoven?....hmmmmm...it's very hard to make a choise.
Today, for me, Mozart is the best....tomorrow... maybe Beethoven. ;-)


----------



## Curiosity

Nicola said:


> If only that were the case, but I doubt it. It looks more like an over-focused concentration on the music of Beethoven. How more "newbie" can anyone get?


"Noob" is the best you can come up with?


----------



## Guest

Oh, I see. Another intellectual giant!!


----------



## John Kiunke

Although Beethoven was a great genius, only Bach on a very good day could surpass Mozart in my opinion. The 20th piano concerto, Requiem, Magic Flute, Clarinet Concerto, countless adagios, the Mass in C minor...


----------



## Mozartmusic1998

Mozart completely developed and innovated the overall style of the piano concerto which then Beethoven essentially copied over. Beethoven piano concertos will never stand up to the Mozart piano concertos, they're simply on another level


----------



## Pugg

Lovely to see new member digging up old topic's.:tiphat:


----------



## JohnMinster

There's no question in my mind that Beethoven is the greatest of the greats. I listen to Mozart all the time but I put Bach and Ludwig ahead of him.


----------



## PlaySalieri

JohnMinster said:


> There's no question in my mind that Beethoven is the greatest of the greats. I listen to Mozart all the time but I put Bach and Ludwig ahead of him.


spot on - bach and beethoven are greater than mozart

but mozart is the one we listen to most


----------



## Scififan

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Gotta be Beethoven based on his innovation in what music can express. I feel the only work of Mozart I've heard that can rival the depth of humanity of Beethoven is his Requiem, which wasn't even finished by him anyway.
> 
> I'm always struck by the number of on-line music forum members who make such judgments concerning Mozart's apparent lack of emotional depth. Of course such a judgment is to be expected considering the preference for Romanticism as a whole, as opposed to almost any other musical movement. I personally fall in with the thoughts of Oscar Wilde who suggested in his preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray: _"The artist is the creator of beautiful things... All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."_
> 
> There is no more of less emotion or "meaning" in Mozart than in Beethoven. Whatever emotion or meaning is there is that which we (the audience) perceive. Beethoven uses a minor key more often and employs a greater contrast in dynamics. Thus he is more emotional? More tragic? As a visual artist I have a solid grasp of what elements to employ to convey drama and tragedy: a large contrast of light and dark (chiaroscuro) combined with a limited color range (and a use of black and red)... and throw in a heavy, profound subject, such as death, and I am assured of inspiring a certain emotional response. But does this make the work better or worse than that of an artist such as Monet who employs joyful colors and subjects drawn from everyday life? Certainly not. If such were true, then would not an artist simply choose to employ "profound" subject matter and dark colors (or a minor key) in order to assure the profundity of the work?
> 
> It is easy to be seduced by our emotional responses to a work of art... by sentiment. But are these what makes for a better or worse work of art? Mozart worked in an era prior to Romanticism and Burke's essay on the Sublime and the notion that inspiring a "profound" emotional response to a work of art was the highest aspiration of the artist. Mozart's work, I would argue, is no less marvelous than Beethoven's. It is laden with wit, dazzlingly brilliant, daring in the manner in which he plays with the audience's expectations. Considering his operas alone, he is no less innovative than Beethoven. Nor is he without moments of that are the most touching and laden with emotion. He simply doesn't wallow in these. Such moments occur... as a sudden thought of mortality or loss in the midst of a glittering ballroom dance... and then he is off dancing again.
> 
> I don't mind comparisons in art, but like Andre, I do sense they are something of a waste of time. Art is not a heavy-weight bout: "And in this corner, wearing a powdered wig and weighing in at 192 pounds we have Johann Sebastian Bach!!!" Surely, there are better ways to discuss an artist's achievements?


I agree completely. You make very cogent points.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Part of me thinks stuff like this proves Mozart is greater:

- 



- 




- 



- 




- 



- 




This isn't like Mozart stealing from Paisiello or Handel stealing from Telemann, where the thief improves what he stole. Beethoven can't improve Mozart, so he just makes him bigger and more serious.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

If you're talking physical strength the winner is Beethoven without a doubt. Beethoven was the toughest cookie in the world. Nobody stands a chance against him.


----------



## dieter

Who cares ? I didn't know it was a competition. They're both great, wrote in different times, wrote in different styles, in different milieus even, in that Beethoven was largely a freelancer and Mozart for quite a while was a kept man. Also, society changed during Beethoven's composing life. Then there was that dreadful tyrant Napoleon to contend with...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

For some reason I have never been able so far to appreciate Mozart as much as many other classical fans do. It is good music, sure, but for me it rather falls in the category of "pretty". Beethoven, Bach, Schubert - all these make a far greater impression on me than Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

dieter said:


> Who cares ? I didn't know it was a competition. They're both great, wrote in different times, wrote in different styles, in different milieus even, in that Beethoven was largely a freelancer and Mozart for quite a while was a kept man. Also, society changed during Beethoven's composing life. Then there was that dreadful tyrant Napoleon to contend with...


There is no question in my mind that whenever I listen to Beethoven I reckon him to be the greatest composer ever. The problem is Mozart has the same effect of overwhelming me with his greatness when I listen to him.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Curiosity said:


> I'm in agreement with you. Beethoven brought something new to the table every time. *Mozart's compositions are beautiful, but as far as I'm concerned, that's all they are. Beethoven's are beautiful, sad, angry, defiant, even disturbing and everything in between. He showed much more range of expression as a composer.*


That is a mid 19th century view - I am afraid you are way behind the times.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Abraham Lincoln said:


> *If you're talking physical strength the winner is Beethoven without a doubt. Beethoven was the toughest cookie in the world. Nobody stands a chance against him.*


what does any of that mean?

you mean Beethoven had oomph and Mozart didnt? OK I can live with that.

Mozart wasnt one for impressing audiences with sheer volume - he once wrote to his sister "do not give up your quiet way of playing"

I can imagine he would have thought Beethoven's heavyweight piano pieces such as the hammerklavier quite tasteless.


----------



## dieter

DavidA said:


> There is no question in my mind that whenever I listen to Beethoven I reckon him to be the greatest composer ever. The problem is Mozart has the same effect of overwhelming me with his greatness when I listen to him.


I agree entirely. The same thing happens to me when I listen to Bach. In the end, probably, there is no 'Greatest'.


----------



## dieter

SiegendesLicht said:


> For some reason I have never been able so far to appreciate Mozart as much as many other classical fans do. It is good music, sure, but for me it rather falls in the category of "pretty". Beethoven, Bach, Schubert - all these make a far greater impression on me than Mozart.


I agree entirely with my heart but when I hear great Mozart my head says 'he is the greatest.' It happened recently at a music festival performance of the G minor quintet: I found myself thinking, hey man, there is no greater music than this.
Mind you, it happens when I listen to the opening of Walkure as well...


----------



## dieter

SiegendesLicht said:


> For some reason I have never been able so far to appreciate Mozart as much as many other classical fans do. It is good music, sure, but for me it rather falls in the category of "pretty". Beethoven, Bach, Schubert - all these make a far greater impression on me than Mozart.


Also, SiegendesLicht, there is much more than prettiness in the great Mozart compositions. There's as much agony, pain, love and compassion as in Bach, Schubert, Beethoven and our good friend Wagner. ( I always add Handel here as well. ) And then there's Anton Bruckner who somehow transcends all of the above. Sometimes I think he's my numero uno.....


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

dieter said:


> They're both great, wrote in different times, wrote in different styles, in different milieus even, in that Beethoven was largely a freelancer and Mozart for quite a while was a kept man.


This is just plain incorrect.

And the truth is closer to the other way around.

Mozart was a "freelancer" from 1782 until his death in 1791, a period encompassing, let's say, 90% of his greatest works (and even, let's say, 85% of the most popular ones). Beethoven may or may not count as a "kept man" of Prince Lobkowitz, Archduke Rudolph, and Prince Kinsky, but he got more financial security from them than Mozart did from his comparatively small fry rich friends, such as the Baron von Swieten, the Haffner family, and Puchberg.


----------



## fluteman

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I belong to a musical forum in which most of the contributors believe that Mozart was a greater composer than Beethoven. They mostly cite reasons to do with elegance, restraint, ethereal qualities, ineffable beauty etc., and suggest Beethoven wore his heart on his sleeve and was often too dramatic. What do people think? I prefer Beethoven over all others, but I want the opinion of others too. Thanks.


Beethoven by TKO in ten rounds.


----------



## Marinera

Who cares. I prefer Mozart. Everyone else can listen to Beethoven.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

stomanek said:


> what does any of that mean?
> 
> you mean Beethoven had oomph and Mozart didnt? OK I can live with that.
> 
> Mozart wasnt one for impressing audiences with sheer volume - he once wrote to his sister "do not give up your quiet way of playing"
> 
> I can imagine he would have thought Beethoven's heavyweight piano pieces such as the hammerklavier quite tasteless.


Mozart was thin and scrawny, Beethoven on the other hand...


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mozart was thin and scrawny, Beethoven on the other hand...


Beethoven was tiny: http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-heights/

Mozart was slightly bigger, but still small by today's standard. Google says Bach was 5'11'', making him the biggest of the three.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Beethoven was tiny: http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-heights/
> 
> Mozart was slightly bigger, but still small by today's standard. Google says Bach was 5'11'', making him the biggest of the three.


So - Beethoven went to the beach and had copies of Mozart's d minor piano concerto kicked in his face - what a pint size wimp.

No wonder he composed the way he did - big and heavy - making up for his physical size.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> So - Beethoven went to the beach and had copies of Mozart's d minor piano concerto kicked in his face - what a pint size wimp.
> 
> No wonder he composed the way he did - big and heavy - making up for his physical size.


How old are you?


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> That is a mid 19th century view - I am afraid you are way behind the times.


No, that's a view that many folks currently alive hold. FWIW, I don't really care whether this view is correct or not. Except for a few Beethoven works, I'll take Mozart every time.


----------



## KenOC

fluteman said:


> Beethoven by TKO in ten rounds.


Are you kidding? It'd be the Bonn Brawler over Kid Wolfie by a clean knockout inside four rounds. The smart money says so.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> No, *that's a view that many folks currently alive hold.* FWIW, I don't really care whether this view is correct or not. Except for a few Beethoven works, I'll take Mozart every time.


Indeed - by the million.

But they are all way behind the times - the academic/informed view has changed but the public perception has not. Many who have heard of Mozart but dont know the music much (beyond the obvious ones eine kleine etc) hold this dated view.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> How old are you?


I am 98 years old.

How old are you?

You dont like it much when I say anything derogatory about Beethoven do you.

What's your problem? If you dont like my posts - why not switch me to ignore.


----------



## millionrainbows

Beethoven is more imaginative. He 'plays' more with the music. As in the Sixth (Pastoral) Symphony, often a theme is associated with a rhythm, such as triplets. It makes recognizing the theme easier. I don't hear this rhythmic invention in Mozart.


----------



## poconoron

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven is more imaginative. He 'plays' more with the music. As in the Sixth (Pastoral) Symphony, often a theme is associated with a rhythm, such as triplets. It makes recognizing the theme easier. I don't hear this rhythmic invention in Mozart.


And I don't hear anything in Beethoven approaching Mozart's utter mastery of opera.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Beethoven was tiny: http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-heights/
> 
> Mozart was slightly bigger, but still small by today's standard. Google says Bach was 5'11'', making him the biggest of the three.


Beethoven may have been short, but his physical and mental strength was not to be scoffed at. With such a long history of ailments (hearing loss, intestinal problems, mood swings etc), it's a wonder he managed to compose so much.

Bach probably wouldn't fight them. He'd just stand on the side while shaking his head. "Kids these days..."


----------



## ArtMusic

poconoron said:


> And I don't hear anything in Beethoven approaching Mozart's utter mastery of opera.


Beethoven's opera is solid but not outstanding in the entire opera repertoire across all times. That explains why he wrote only one. It was not really his "thing".


----------



## SixFootScowl

poconoron said:


> And I don't hear anything in Beethoven approaching Mozart's utter mastery of opera.


Isn't it true that Mozart's operas are of a different style than Beethoven's singspiel opera? Then it is really not to be compared. Compared to other singspiel operas I suspect Beethoven would be near the top.


----------



## Mahlerian

Florestan said:


> Isn't it true that Mozart's operas are of a different style than Beethoven's singspiel opera? Then it is really not to be compared. Compared to other singspiel operas I suspect Beethoven would be near the top.


Mozart wrote two frequently performed singspiel works, The Magic Flute and The Abduction from the Seraglio. I would rank both above Fidelio. The rest of his major operas are either Italian opera seria or Italian opera buffa.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven is more imaginative. He 'plays' more with the music. As in the Sixth (Pastoral) Symphony, often a theme is associated with a rhythm, such as triplets. It makes recognizing the theme easier. I don't hear this rhythmic invention in Mozart.


The harmonic language in much of Mozart's music such as his 40th symphony and late PC's - that to me is imagination. To compare Beethoven to Mozart in this area is like comparing color TV to black and white.

Ultimately Beethoven's 'playing with the music' mostly adds up to a bunch of showmanship and non sense to compensate for his compositional short comings.

Maybe that is a touch harsh. The truth is I don't actually think Beethoven was a poor composer, but I feel his flaws do stand out a lot when he is compared with Bach or Mozart.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Mahlerian said:


> Mozart wrote two frequently performed singspiel works, The Magic Flute and The Abduction from the Seraglio. I would rank both above Fidelio. The rest of his major operas are either Italian opera seria or Italian opera buffa.


Whelp, shows how much I know about Mozart operas. I'll refer back to Bernstein's statement of Fidelio being a flawed masterpiece. But I don't know where the flaw is because I like it very much. Also, let's consider Fidelio was Beethoven's first opera. Had Beethoven written more operas, perhaps they would be even better.


----------



## KenOC

"Had Beethoven written more operas, perhaps they would be even better."

Heck, he wrote his one opera three times. And its overture four!


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> "Had Beethoven written more operas, perhaps they would be even better."
> 
> Heck, he wrote his one opera three times. And its overture four!


True, but as you should recall, the first one flopped because the army was in town and all his regular audience had fled, the revision of that was produced the next year and would have done much better but for Beethoven getting into an argument with the theatre owner. Finally about eight years later it was revised one more time and we had a winner. Not to say the original was bad, but it got chopped for the first revision, then in the restoration things changed. As for the overtures, well there is a similar story on that, but I think he ended up with the best overture of the four in the final version. And it was Beethoven's habit to work and rework things until he got it just where he wanted it, so the opera was no different in that sense.

Mozart, on the other hand was more like a pitcher of music. It just poured fourth from him like wine from a carafe. Maybe he was possessed.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan, you may enjoy these AMZ reviews.

For the first version, late 1805: "He who has followed the path of the development of Beethoven's otherwise undoubted talent with interest and calm objectivity had to hope for something quite different of this work than what was presented. Beethoven has often sacrificed the beautiful for the sake of the new and peculiar. Therefore, one should above all have expected peculiarity, novelty and a certain originality in this, his first theatrical product. But precisely these qualities are what are found the least."

Second version, mid-1806: "Beethoven has brought his opera Fidelio back to the stage with many changes and cuts. An entire act was lost in the process, but the work has gained by it and has also been better received."


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> The harmonic language in much of Mozart's music such as his 40th symphony and late PC's - that to me is imagination. To compare Beethoven to Mozart in this area is like comparing color TV to black and white.
> 
> *Ultimately Beethoven's 'playing with the music' mostly adds up to a bunch of showmanship and non sense to compensate for his compositional short comings.
> *
> *Maybe that is a touch harsh.* The truth is I don't actually think Beethoven was a poor composer, but I feel his flaws do stand out a lot when he is compared with Bach or Mozart.


A touch harsh? A touch?

As my aunt Helen used to say in such moments, "Lord give me strength!"

You seem to have founded a personal industry on finding fresh ways to pan one of the most profound and powerful creative spirits in musical history, apparently for no other reason than that you are out of sympathy with his work.

Beethoven was a different sort of creator than Mozart, and both were different from Bach, and all three were different from Wagner, and all were... These attempts to pit transcendent geniuses against each other are loathsome.

If Beethoven's "flaws" (whatever they are) "stand out" for you, consider the possibility that this may be inevitable in a creator who was driven to break new ground in work after work. Given that, it's the sheer bloody perfection of his numerous major works - the ability invent something strikingly new and yet make note follow note with absolute inevitability - that ought to leave us slack-jawed with wonder.

There is music of perfect poise and loveliness - Beethoven could write that sort of music - and there is music that thrusts so daringly and intensely into the unknown that poise and loveliness are rendered at least incidental and at most irrelevant. Is _King Lear_ a "well-made play"? Is _Tristan und Isolde_ a "well-made opera"? I'm not prepared to say - and not inclined to care. But no composer, I believe, combined innovation, profundity of expression, and perfection of form better than LVB.

You don't have to like him. But comparing him to a "showman" and a "car salesman" (as you've done elsewhere) is not criticism but confession. Whatever is motivating such remarks, they also leave me slack-jawed, but for quite different reasons.


----------



## KenOC

Fidelio? Somebody should check me on this, but I seem to remember reading that it's the earliest opera still in the active repertoire aside from Mozart's. If that's true, it can't be too bad.


----------



## dieter

Woodduck said:


> A touch harsh? A touch?
> 
> As my aunt Helen used to say in such moments, "Lord give me strength!"
> 
> You seem to have founded a personal industry on finding fresh ways to pan one of the most profound and powerful creative spirits in musical history, apparently for no other reason than that you are out of sympathy with his work.
> 
> Beethoven was a different sort of creator than Mozart, and both were different from Bach, and all three were different from Wagner, and all were... These attempts to pit transcendent geniuses against each other are loathsome.
> 
> If Beethoven's "flaws" (whatever they are) "stand out" for you, consider the possibility that this may be inevitable in a creator who was driven to break new ground in work after work. Given that, it's the sheer bloody perfection of his numerous major works - the ability invent something strikingly new and yet make note follow note with absolute inevitability - that ought to leave us slack-jawed with wonder.
> 
> There is music of perfect poise and loveliness - Beethoven could write that sort of music - and there is music that thrusts so daringly and intensely into the unknown that poise and loveliness are rendered at least incidental and at most irrelevant. Is _King Lear_ a "well-made play"? Is _Tristan und Isolde_ a "well-made opera"? I'm not prepared to say - and not inclined to care. But no composer, I believe, combined innovation, profundity of expression, and perfection of form better than LVB.
> 
> You don't have to like him. But comparing him to a "showman" and a "car salesman" (as you've done elsewhere) is not criticism but confession. Whatever is motivating such remarks, they also leave me slack-jawed, but for quite different reasons.


Pure wisdom, again, Mr Woodduck.


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> The harmonic language in much of Mozart's music such as his 40th symphony and late PC's - that to me is imagination. To compare Beethoven to Mozart in this area is like comparing color TV to black and white.
> 
> *Ultimately Beethoven's 'playing with the music' mostly adds up to a bunch of showmanship and non sense to compensate for his compositional short comings. *
> 
> Maybe that is a touch harsh. The truth is I don't actually think Beethoven was a poor composer, but I feel his flaws do stand out a lot when he is compared with Bach or Mozart.


Or of course the shortcomings might be your as a listener!


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> A touch harsh? A touch?
> 
> As my aunt Helen used to say in such moments, "Lord give me strength!"
> 
> You seem to have founded a personal industry on finding fresh ways to pan one of the most profound and powerful creative spirits in musical history, apparently for no other reason than that you are out of sympathy with his work.
> 
> Beethoven was a different sort of creator than Mozart, and both were different from Bach, and all three were different from Wagner, and all were... These attempts to pit transcendent geniuses against each other are loathsome.
> 
> If Beethoven's "flaws" (whatever they are) "stand out" for you, consider the possibility that this may be inevitable in a creator who was driven to break new ground in work after work. Given that, it's the sheer bloody perfection of his numerous major works - the ability invent something strikingly new and yet make note follow note with absolute inevitability - that ought to leave us slack-jawed with wonder.
> 
> There is music of perfect poise and loveliness - Beethoven could write that sort of music - and there is music that thrusts so daringly and intensely into the unknown that poise and loveliness are rendered at least incidental and at most irrelevant. Is _King Lear_ a "well-made play"? Is _Tristan und Isolde_ a "well-made opera"? I'm not prepared to say - and not inclined to care. But no composer, I believe, combined innovation, profundity of expression, and perfection of form better than LVB.
> 
> You don't have to like him. But comparing him to a "showman" and a "car salesman" (as you've done elsewhere) is not criticism but confession. Whatever is motivating such remarks, they also leave me slack-jawed, but for quite different reasons.


Well if Beethoven's music is all that you suggest than surely it will stand up to individuals like myself (the great minority) speaking their mind from time to time. I've often wanted to say more on this forum about it but held back, because I don't like criticising composers for no good reason. But then again when I speak my mind on the topic what generally ensues is some interesting discussion. I think ultimately a little bit of that makes this place more interesting - its a balance. But do you notice me going into every thread about Beethoven to bash him? Of course not, I only bring up my honest feelings (and what I feel are valid observations) on the odd occasion when the topics come up, it has been a little more perhaps lately because there has been an increase lately in the topics on Beethoven (the vast majority of which I have not made any comments in). I will add that I have seen many posters criticize the music of Mozart and Bach here to varying degrees as well - which is their right to do on this forum, and I generally don't worry much about it because I am quite secure about the merit of their musical contributions.

I've acknowledged time and again that Beethoven has elements of genius in his work. I also think there are elements that are less tasteful and not up to par for someone who is often cited as the greatest composer of all time. It often leaves me slack jawed at how many people could actually think that.


----------



## tdc

DavidA said:


> Or of course the shortcomings might be your as a listener!


I could turn around and say that you have short comings as a listener for not embracing post 1950's music. But I think the blame the listener tactic is generally a very weak argument unless the listener has shown clearly that they are arguing from a place of ignorance (ie - not even listening to the music.)


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Well if Beethoven's music is all that you suggest than surely it will stand up to individuals like myself (the great minority) speaking their mind from time to time. I've often wanted to say more on this forum about it but held back, because I don't like criticising composers for no good reason. But then again when I speak my mind on the topic what generally ensues is some interesting discussion. I think ultimately a little bit of that makes this place more interesting - its a balance. But do you notice me going into every thread about Beethoven to bash him? Of course not, I only bring up my honest feelings (and what I feel are valid observations) on the odd occasion when the topics come up, it has been a little more perhaps lately because there has been an increase lately in the topics on Beethoven (the vast majority of which I have not made any comments in). I will add that I have seen many posters criticize the music of Mozart and Bach here to varying degrees as well - which is their right to do on this forum, and I generally don't worry much about it because I am quite secure about the merit of their musical contributions.
> 
> I've acknowledged time and again that Beethoven has elements of genius in his work. I also think there are elements that are less tasteful and not up to par for someone who is often cited as the greatest composer of all time. It often leaves me slack jawed at how many people could actually think that.


Expressions of critical judgment are never unwelcome. All artists have shortcomings, as do all critics. It remains to be shown that comparing one of the artistic pillars of Western civilization to Donald Trump or a used car salesman has anything to do with art or criticism.

Were I to find the enormous weight of world opinion - opinion shared by the keenest musical minds and the generality of music lovers alike - beyond my comprehension, I'd tend to wonder what I might be missing. Perhaps that kind of self-examination is foreign to you. Yes, of course Beethoven can stand up to cheap insults. He'll stand up to a great deal more than that. My objections have nothing to do with my not being "secure about the merit" of his musical contributions. I couldn't possibly be more secure about anything.

Let's just say I have a very sensitive b***s*** meter. It readily detects the difference between responsible, informed criticism and ridicule.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Let's just say I have a very sensitive b***s*** meter. It readily detects the difference between responsible, informed criticism and ridicule.


Sensitive is right. I didn't know my personal reactions to the music (which I stated were subjective and that I realized Beethoven was a genius) could set off such a meter. However if I'm full of b***s*** at least mine is concise and to the point.

The last comment was directed towards Beethoven's music (and is a joke). Its not in reference to your posts.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven was a different sort of creator than Mozart, and both were different from Bach, and all three were different from Wagner, and all were... These attempts to pit transcendent geniuses against each other are loathsome.


That nails it for me and is what was in the back of my mind, but not having much experience with the music of Bach and Mozart I could not make the statement.


----------



## dieter

Hildadam Bingor said:


> This is just plain incorrect.
> 
> And the truth is closer to the other way around.
> 
> Mozart was a "freelancer" from 1782 until his death in 1791, a period encompassing, let's say, 90% of his greatest works (and even, let's say, 85% of the most popular ones). Beethoven may or may not count as a "kept man" of Prince Lobkowitz, Archduke Rudolph, and Prince Kinsky, but he got more financial security from them than Mozart did from his comparatively small fry rich friends, such as the Baron von Swieten, the Haffner family, and Puchberg.


Thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## SixFootScowl

> Originally Posted by Hildadam Bingor View Post
> This is just plain incorrect.
> 
> And the truth is closer to the other way around.
> 
> Mozart was a "freelancer" from 1782 until his death in 1791, a period encompassing, let's say, 90% of his greatest works (and even, let's say, 85% of the most popular ones). Beethoven may or may not count as a "kept man" of Prince Lobkowitz, Archduke Rudolph, and Prince Kinsky, but he got more financial security from them than Mozart did from his comparatively small fry rich friends, such as the Baron von Swieten, the Haffner family, and Puchberg.


So it would seem, then, that Mozart wrote to please the masses (upper class masses) while Beethoven wrote to please himself (in spite of the prince). On that basis I will take Beethoven's music as I generally don't care for the tastes of the masses.


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> So it would seem, then, that Mozart wrote to please the masses (upper class masses) while Beethoven wrote to please himself (in spite of the prince). On that basis I will take Beethoven's music as I generally don't care for the tastes of the masses.


Sorry but this is not correct. Both of them were reliant on the wealthier classes for support and both wrote for commissions. There is a lot of drivel talked about Beethoven the artist. He wrote for money because he had to put bread on the table. Similarly Bach wrote for the church because it was his job. What Bach, Mozart and Beethoven had in common was that because they had stupendous genius as musicians their work is generally in the very highest pantheons of musical achievement.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Florestan said:


> So it would seem, then, that Mozart wrote to please the masses (upper class masses) while Beethoven wrote to please himself (in spite of the prince).


This is incoherent. You're offering the fact that the masses paid Mozart as proof that he wrote to please them, and then offering the fact that the princes paid Beethoven as proof that he didn't write to please them.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Hildadam Bingor said:


> This is incoherent. You're offering the fact that the masses paid Mozart as proof that he wrote to please them, and then offering the fact that the princes paid Beethoven as proof that he didn't write to please them.


We know that Beethoven was at times disrespectful of the princes, so it would seem reasonable to assume that while he wrote for them he did not necessarily write what they wanted the way they wanted it, but wrote it the way he (Beethoven) wanted it.

For example, 


> Prince Lichnowsky [a financial supporter of Beethoven] was forgiving of the young musician's treatment of him - Beethoven found the Lichnowsky's attention oppressive and was quite prepared to snub them in public.


This suggests to me that Beethoven was a free spirit and was not going to kow-tow to anybody. Likewise, his music would not be in conformity with what others' want. The man had attitude:


----------



## CDs

Florestan said:


> We know that Beethoven was at times disrespectful of the princes, so it would seem reasonable to assume that while he wrote for them he did not necessarily write what they wanted the way they wanted it, but wrote it the way he (Beethoven) wanted it.


If Beethoven were alive today instead of saying princes he would be saying "record executives and labels".
I want to hear what the artist wants me to hear not what some corporate fat cat wants me to hear.


----------



## Kieran

Mozart didn't write what "fat cats" wanted to hear, either. Remember, a lot of his music wasn't understood and was considered to be too complicated. He wrote what he wanted to write, but he also had an ear for the audience too. On top of this, he could compose pieces that kept connoisseurs flummoxed and lay-folk thrilled. He wasn't a one-dimensional chocolate box porcelain image in a powder-puff wig. In every genre he composed in, he advanced music too. he was innovative in instrumental music, and opera. At a certain point in time, he fell out of favour, not because he was trying to please people, but simply because he was considered too difficult...


----------



## DavidA

Kieran said:


> Mozart didn't write what "fat cats" wanted to hear, either. Remember, a lot of his music wasn't understood and was considered to be too complicated. He wrote what he wanted to write, but he also had an ear for the audience too. On top of this, he could compose pieces that kept connoisseurs flummoxed and lay-folk thrilled. He wasn't a one-dimensional chocolate box porcelain image in a powder-puff wig. In every genre he composed in, he advanced music too. he was innovative in instrumental music, and opera. At a certain point in time, he fell out of favour, not because he was trying to please people, but simply because he was considered too difficult...


Unfortunately many people have got this chocolate box image of Mozart or the movie Amadeus childish one. He was in fact a highly sophisticated man of the Enlightenment who spoke several languages fluently. The thing he couldn't do was to manage money and this led to a relative saying he was 'like a child'. But they only meant like a child with money mismanagement not with other things.


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> We know that Beethoven was at times disrespectful of the princes, so it would seem reasonable to assume that while he wrote for them he did not necessarily write what they wanted the way they wanted it, but wrote it the way he (Beethoven) wanted it.
> This suggests to me that *Beethoven was a free spirit and was not going to kow-tow to anybody. *Likewise, his music would not be in conformity with what others' want. The man had attitude:


Up to a point. On one famous occasion when walking with Goethe he barged straight through a bevy of princes while Goethe bowed to them, remarking that while there were many princes there were only two of Beethoven and Goethe. On the other hand he was not above accepting commissions and grants from the nobility. So attitude with a practical regard for his pocket!


----------



## Dim7

Even as a fan of Mozart and somebody who feels ambivalent about Beethoven, I will admit that Beethoven's music has a wider range of expression. What I don't agree that Beethoven's music has some "sense of inevitability" or that "every note is just right", on the contrary many moments in Beethoven's music sound awkward and strange to me.

In a world where only Mozart's and Beethoven's music existed, I wouldn't consider Mozart quite as much better as I do now considering all the innovative things Beethoven did. However I find that late Romantic composers had more interesting harmony, orchestration and sense of melody than Beethoven, so when I look for a music with a wide range of expression I prefer those rather than Beethoven, where as when it comes to music of "perfection" and graceful beauty, I find that no one has ever surprassed Mozart in that.


----------



## clavichorder

Aramis said:


> Such "versus" threads make sense only if there are two opposite composers given who both represent extremely diffrent ideas. Mozart and Beethoven don't. Two greats of classical period - who was greater? Who cares? I'll tell you who - bores. Yes, they care a lot. After they finish discussing this subject let them make another list of 10 greatest composers of all time and argue if Bach should be above Mozart or if Wagner should be at #4 between Bizet and Johann Strauss or at #8 between Liszt and Schoenberg. Then they can go listen to Brahms' op. 118.


What did this rascal do to get banned again? I don't understand. Good old post.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

-Deleted- I changed my mind.


----------



## PlaySalieri

clavichorder said:


> What did this rascal do to get banned again? I don't understand. Good old post.


Yep - must be careful in TC - calling the better half of the board's members "bores" will get you a ban.

I was banned for less.


----------



## Jason Hu

In my opinion, Mozart's music focus more on the melody, but Beethoven's more on the whole structure and something more than melody. But music is a emotional thing and one cannot be "better" than another.


----------



## Pugg

Jason Hu said:


> In my opinion, Mozart's music focus more on the melody, but Beethoven's more on the whole structure and something more than melody. But music is a emotional thing and one cannot be "better" than another.


Very good point.:tiphat:


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach

stomanek said:


> Indeed - by the million.
> 
> But they are all way behind the times - *the academic/informed view has changed but the public perception has not*. Many who have heard of Mozart but dont know the music much (beyond the obvious ones eine kleine etc) hold this dated view.


Where's your evidence for this please?

I'm an active professional musician, often in contact with musicologists in Europe, and I'm unaware of any such unanimity in this rather preposterous argument.


----------



## DavidA

Jason Hu said:


> In my opinion, *Mozart's music focus more on the melody,* but Beethoven's more on the whole structure and something more than melody. But music is a emotional thing and one cannot be "better" than another.


I think you need to listen harder. You will find endless subtleties within Mozart's accompaniments to the melodies. Take the last moment off the symphony 41


----------

