# Mozart rated most fanous musician in history



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Dont know if anyone noticed this poll:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...son-history-according-software-algorithm.html

Mozart weighs in at no 24 - just ahead of Beethoven.

I think M tops just about every poll - most sales etc

Well - that settles it then.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Thank God it wasn't a Sun or Daily Star poll as Beyonce, Robbie Williams or Lady bloody Gaga would probably have beaten both.

Can I take this opportunity to confess that I hadn't the faintest clue who Carl Linnaeus was?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

elgars ghost said:


> Thank God it wasn't a Sun or Daily Star poll as Beyonce, Robbie Williams or Lady bloody Gaga would probably have beaten both.
> 
> Can I take this opportunity to confess that I hadn't the faintest clue who Carl Linnaeus was?


He was the father of systematics (the science of classifying organisms).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> He was the father of systematics (the science of classifying organisms).


Linnaeus was preceded by (guess who) Goethe, an inspiration to many composers, who wrote several works on morphology, "a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features." Morphology is still the basis of determining evolutionary development and the relationships among species, especially when no DNA is available for analysis as in the case of fossil species. Linnaeus designed the taxonomies we use today to organize and represent these relationships, or so I understand.

Goethe was an innovator in more than one branch of science. From Beethoven, 1820: "Can you lend me the 'Theory of Colors' for a few weeks? It is an important work. His last things are insipid."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Linnaeus popularized the binomial nomenclature system whereby every species is known by a two-part name (_Homo sapiens_, _Zea mays_, etc.) as well as rank-base taxonomy where species are grouped hierarchically into genera, families, orders, and so forth.

I've not heard it said that Goethe was an important taxonomist, but he was indeed a pioneering plant morphologist. I believe he was the first to realize that the petals of flowers are modified leaves, for instance.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't know that Goethe was a taxonomist at all. But I believe taxonomies such as Linnaeus's are built based on morphology, or were originally. Do I have that right?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Yeah, the Linnean taxonomy is morphology based. Don't know much about the animal classification, but the _Species Plantarum_ classified plants by the number and type of sexual organs.

It's a bit of a different approach from what a modern systematics would take, though. All modern species classifications are based on evolution, which Linneaus, of course, didn't know about. Even a morphology-based modern classification uses morphological traits to infer the evolutionary history of the organism, where for Linneaus morphological traits are just things ou use to identify species in the field.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> Yeah, the Linnean taxonomy is morphology based. Don't know much about the animal classification, but the _Species Plantarum_ classified plants by the number and type of sexual organs.


I would guess that those are early DNA differentiators as well. If so -- good call, Linnaeus!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I would guess that those are early DNA differentiators as well. If so -- good call, Linnaeus!


They are indeed. There's a deep divide, for instance, between plants with hidden sexual organs (mosses and suchlike) and plants where the reproductive system is exposed (flowering plants and conifers).


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Thank God it wasn't a Sun or Daily Star poll as Beyonce, Robbie Williams or Lady bloody Gaga would probably have beaten both.


I do notice that Elvis is on the list though...



KenOC said:


> Goethe was an innovator in more than one branch of science. From Beethoven, 1820: "Can you lend me the 'Theory of Colors' for a few weeks? It is an important work. His last things are insipid."


There is an endearing story about Beethoven and Goethe walking down the street one day, and people constantly bowing to them or lifting their hats (in today's world they'd probably be mobbed by paparazzi). After a while Goethe mentioned just how irritated he sometimes gets with all this hero worship. "Don't worry," said Beethoven. "It's probably me they are bowing to."



ahammel said:


> Yeah, the Linnean taxonomy is morphology based. Don't know much about the animal classification, but the _Species Plantarum_ classified plants by the number and type of sexual organs.


By modern standards, his plant classification now looks utterly silly. But of course we speak now with 20/20 hindsight. If I am not mistaken, his animal classification helped to lay the groundwork for Darwin, because in animals the relationships are perhaps more obvious than in plants, and taxonomy sort of implies evolutionary relationships. It does so even in plants if you know what to look for.



> It's a bit of a different approach from what a modern systematics would take, though. All modern species classifications are based on evolution, which Linneaus, of course, didn't know about. Even a morphology-based modern classification uses morphological traits to infer the evolutionary history of the organism, where for Linneaus morphological traits are just things ou use to identify species in the field.


It is noteworthy that much of the morphological classification has in any event been confirmed by DNA studies. Here and there, there were indeed some surprises. A classification system that is too heavily based on DNA may well in some ways be too true to be good, because it can be difficult to use out in the field.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

brianvds said:


> There is an endearing story about Beethoven and Goethe walking down the street one day, and people constantly bowing to them or lifting their hats (in today's world they'd probably be mobbed by paparazzi). *After a while Goethe mentioned just how irritated he sometimes gets with all this hero worship. "Don't worry," said Beethoven. "It's probably me they are bowing to."*


Hahaha. I love it.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

brianvds said:


> By modern standards, his plant classification now looks utterly silly.


Not at all! Sexual characteristics are still incredibly important in plant identification. I think most field botanists would find it impossible to work without them. True, they don't always reflect evolutionary relationships, but that wasn't Linneaus' goal. For a practical, field-identification centred classification scheme, the sexual system was an excellent choice.



brianvds said:


> If I am not mistaken, his animal classification helped to lay the groundwork for Darwin, because in animals the relationships are perhaps more obvious than in plants, and taxonomy sort of implies evolutionary relationships. It does so even in plants if you know what to look for.


It's worth noting that Darwin corresponded and collaborated extensively with botanists, notably Joseph Hooker and Asa Gray, throughout his career. He published several treatises on botany himself, and plants are dealt with extensively in the _Origin_.



brianvds said:


> It is noteworthy that much of the morphological classification has in any event been confirmed by DNA studies. Here and there, there were indeed some surprises.


The problem with morphological systematics isn't accuracy so much as lack of data. With morphological characteristics, you're working with a few hundred characters if you're lucky, and it's utterly painful to collect and code the data. DNA has its problems, but you can pretty much have as many characters as you have the computational resources to handle, and coding is unambiguous.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> There is an endearing story about Beethoven and Goethe walking down the street one day, and people constantly bowing to them or lifting their hats (in today's world they'd probably be mobbed by paparazzi). After a while Goethe mentioned just how irritated he sometimes gets with all this hero worship. "Don't worry," said Beethoven. "It's probably me they are bowing to."


I've never heard that story and don't know if I believe it. But I like it!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Not at all! Sexual characteristics are still incredibly important in plant identification. I think most field botanists would find it impossible to work without them. True, they don't always reflect evolutionary relationships, but that wasn't Linneaus' goal. For a practical, field-identification centred classification scheme, the sexual system was an excellent choice.


Indeed, but if memory serves, he simply counted stamens and ended up with very weird groupings of plants. Of course, hindsight is always perfect, so I am probably being too hard on him. As you point out, merely by focusing on flowers he already took a big step forward.

Modern biology really rests substantially on the work of just three scientists: Linneaus, Darwin and Mendel.



> It's worth noting that Darwin corresponded and collaborated extensively with botanists, notably Joseph Hooker and Asa Gray, throughout his career. He published several treatises on botany himself, and plants are dealt with extensively in the _Origin_.


Darwin was pretty brilliant in both botany and zoology. And geology for that matter. Pity he never mastered math, or he would have noted the importance of Mendel's work at a glance. 

Incidentally, more to the topic of this message board, Darwin was apparently completely and utterly tone deaf. He loved music, but could listen to the same piece over and over and never get bored with it simply because it was new every time. 



> The problem with morphological systematics isn't accuracy so much as lack of data. With morphological characteristics, you're working with a few hundred characters if you're lucky, and it's utterly painful to collect and code the data. DNA has its problems, but you can pretty much have as many characters as you have the computational resources to handle, and coding is unambiguous.


Yes, you surely get wonderfully accurate evolutionary trees with it. I think it can get problematic out in the field when you don't have a whole lab with you and where it is way more convenient to classify organisms into groups based on a small number of readily observable characteristics. Such groupings often still overlap remarkably well with ones generated by DNA analysis, though not always.

I studied botany ages ago (if memory serves I completed my B degree in 1995), and the other day, looking through Wikipedia articles on plant classification, I felt like I had landed on another planet. Lots of new ideas about the arrangement of taxa! I would guess that a lot of this comes from new DNA studies. So now we know way more about evolutionary relationships, but much of the taxonomic stuff in my oldish field guides seems to have become a tad obsolete.

Oh well, I was always better at animal taxonomy anyway.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I've never heard that story and don't know if I believe it. But I like it!


The story may not be true, but it should be.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Dont know if anyone noticed this poll:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...son-history-according-software-algorithm.html
> 
> .


I think it's quite biased, possibly the most famous persons in history for British people...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

No I didn't notice the poll, I'd never willingly visit The Daily Mail site.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

The thing is, most people will know Beethoven's music more than Mozart's, though they will know Mozart's name as more recognizable as a classical music composer. As for Beethoven's music, it is generally more well-known, though much less often connected with the name/composer himself. For example, we've all been in elementary school, and thus we have heard the famed utteration of "dun dun dun duuuun," the famed opening of the Fifth Symphony. Also, let's note that the Ode to Joy of the Ninth has become a Christmas classic. Moonlight Sonata, which I generally dislike quite greatly except the last movement, is very well known to those who have explored the surface of classical music. This may be due to the fact that it contains some of the style used by contemporary non-classical piano music, such as by Yiruma or Mark Salona. Having explored these details myself, I've composed a bit in their styles, and have had several people tell me that they recognize, or ask me if it is Moonlight Sonata. Of course, the answer is that it is my own work, and to the even slightly more trained ear, it sounds significantly less like Moonlight. Even so, it is interesting that the connection of such things be made to Moonlight, and this is ow I do know that many people who do not generally listen to classical music know at least the basic style of Moonlight Sonata. Nevertheless, this is only an example.... I would say that Beethoven's music is much more well known than Mozart's generally, though the name Mozart is, yes, more famous.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

GioCar said:


> I think it's quite biased, possibly the most famous persons in history for British people...


More like the most famous people for the English-speaking internet, actually.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mstar said:


> Moonlight Sonata, which I generally dislike quite greatly except the last movement, is very well known to those who have explored the surface of classical music. This may be due to the fact that it contains some of the style used by contemporary non-classical piano music, such as by Yiruma or Mark Salona.


...with all of the substance ripped out, of course.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Famous doesn't = good. Though Mozart was great, it is silly to use his fame or popularity as judges for the quality of his work.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

That's a really funny list!

Grover Cleveland at 99? Hmmm.

And why is George W. Bush only 43 on the list? Shouldn't he be like #2 or something?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

BPS said:


> And why is George W. Bush only 43 on the list? Shouldn't he be like #2 or something?


They did some kind of time correction, I believe. Generating a lot of talk doesn't count as much if you were born more recently.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> ...with all of the substance ripped out, of course.


:lol: I tend not to listen to it anymore at all because what I've seen in the music tends to override that of classical, ah, quality.... It's like having a bad recording with a "fuzzy" sound in the background.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

mstar said:


> The thing is, most people will know Beethoven's music more than Mozart's, though they will know Mozart's name as more recognizable as a classical music composer. As for Beethoven's music, it is generally more well-known, though much less often connected with the name/composer himself. For example, we've all been in elementary school, and thus we have heard the famed utteration of "dun dun dun duuuun," the famed opening of the Fifth Symphony. Also, let's note that the Ode to Joy of the Ninth has become a Christmas classic. Moonlight Sonata, which I generally dislike quite greatly except the last movement, is very well known to those who have explored the surface of classical music. This may be due to the fact that it contains some of the style used by contemporary non-classical piano music, such as by Yiruma or Mark Salona. Having explored these details myself, I've composed a bit in their styles, and have had several people tell me that they recognize, or ask me if it is Moonlight Sonata. Of course, the answer is that it is my own work, and to the even slightly more trained ear, it sounds significantly less like Moonlight. Even so, it is interesting that the connection of such things be made to Moonlight, and this is ow I do know that many people who do not generally listen to classical music know at least the basic style of Moonlight Sonata. Nevertheless, this is only an example.... I would say that Beethoven's music is much more well known than Mozart's generally, though the name Mozart is, yes, more famous.


I doubt if most of what you say here is true - Beethoven has maybe half a dozen REALLY famous tunes - the moonlight, ode to joy, 5th sym and a few others. Mozart has far more of that ilk Eine Kleine, Elvira Madigan, Turkish rondo, Figaro overture, Queen of night aria, sy 40, plus many more which have crossed into populat culture. Also - Amadeus brought his music into the public spotlight - plus he's the biggest selling composer on CD etc. Even babies know Mozart


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2013)

ahammel said:


> They did some kind of time correction, I believe. Generating a lot of talk doesn't count as much if you were born more recently.


Any algorithm will give you some list. Based on the contents of this list, I'd say their algorithm is pretty bad.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

BPS said:


> Any algorithm will give you some list. Based on the contents of this list, I'd say their algorithm is pretty bad.


Or the algorithm is fine but the question is vague and the data are irrelevant. GIGO.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I doubt if most of what you say here is true - Beethoven has maybe half a dozen REALLY famous tunes - the moonlight, ode to joy, 5th sym and a few others. Mozart has far more of that ilk Eine Kleine, Elvira Madigan, Turkish rondo, Figaro overture, Queen of night aria, sy 40, plus many more which have crossed into populat culture. Also - Amadeus brought his music into the public spotlight - plus he's the biggest selling composer on CD etc. Even babies know Mozart


Yeah. The other day I heard a kid walking down the street, whistling the Queen of the Night Aria. Come on man. They both have some very famous tunes and this type of debate can't be won. I toss my opinion out there for S&G. While they both have tunes that are highly recognizable to a huge amount of people, I'd wager that more of Beethoven's tunes can actually be attributed to him, as opposed to a familiar tune that you just can't put your finger on. I'm speaking in terms of people who have little exposure to or no interest in classical music. About 25 years ago my cousin bought a CD called Classical Music For People Who Hate Classical Music. At the time, I recognized about 75% of the tunes. I could also name a handful of the tunes, without a clue who the composers were. The few I knew: Beethoven.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

scratchgolf said:


> While they both have tunes that are highly recognizable to a huge amount of people, I'd wager that more of Beethoven's tunes can actually be attributed to him, as opposed to a familiar tune that you just can't put your finger on. I'm speaking in terms of people who have little exposure to or no interest in classical music. About 25 years ago my cousin bought a CD called Classical Music For People Who Hate Classical Music. At the time, I recognized about 75% of the tunes. I could also name a handful of the tunes, without a clue who the composers were. The few I knew: Beethoven.


You're speaking for all people new to classical music based on your own personal experience? That seems a little problematic.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> Yeah. The other day I heard a kid walking down the street, whistling the Queen of the Night Aria. Come on man. They both have some very famous tunes and this type of debate can't be won. I toss my opinion out there for S&G. While they both have tunes that are highly recognizable to a huge amount of people, I'd wager that more of Beethoven's tunes can actually be attributed to him, as opposed to a familiar tune that you just can't put your finger on. I'm speaking in terms of people who have little exposure to or no interest in classical music. About 25 years ago my cousin bought a CD called Classical Music For People Who Hate Classical Music. At the time, I recognized about 75% of the tunes. I could also name a handful of the tunes, without a clue who the composers were. The few I knew: Beethoven.


That is a very scientific approach!

A sample of one and on the basis of 1 CD of famous classical music.

You would need 1000 sample and say 200 famous tunes.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

stomanek said:


> That is a very scientific approach!
> 
> A sample of one and on the basis of 1 CD of famous classical music.
> 
> You would need 1000 sample and say 200 famous tunes.


Just citing an example, and giving an opinion. We each did. All fair and in good fun. I'm sure there are many scientific approaches to this but neither of us went that route. You chose heads and I chose tails. One's age, country, region, and many other demographics factor in their opinion. My example and opinion were based on mine. My assumption as well. People with no classical exposure, beyond television, film, and random encounters, may only be able to recognize 1-3 classical pieces by name and composer. In my non-scientific experience, Beethoven's 5th, 1st Mov is the most recognizable piece in music history.

A few weeks ago I was listening to a new CD of Beethoven's 9th in my car. A stranger walked up to my car and asked if I was listening to opera. I told him it was the ninth and he said, "Wow. I never heard of that. I love classical music. I'll check that out." Perhaps this same guy could have recognized any handful of Mozart tunes. Perhaps not. I just don't see Mozart's music being as mainstream as his name. Not where I'm from and not in my experience.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

stomanek said:


> You would need 1000 sample and say 200 famous tunes.


Your study sound hella over-powered.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> Just citing an example, and giving an opinion. We each did. All fair and in good fun. I'm sure there are many scientific approaches to this but neither of us went that route. You chose heads and I chose tails. One's age, country, region, and many other demographics factor in their opinion. My example and opinion were based on mine. My assumption as well. People with no classical exposure, beyond television, film, and random encounters, may only be able to recognize 1-3 classical pieces by name and composer. In my non-scientific experience, Beethoven's 5th, 1st Mov is the most recognizable piece in music history.
> 
> A few weeks ago I was listening to a new CD of Beethoven's 9th in my car. A stranger walked up to my car and asked if I was listening to opera. I told him it was the ninth and he said, "Wow. I never heard of that. I love classical music. I'll check that out." Perhaps this same guy could have recognized any handful of Mozart tunes. Perhaps not. I just don't see Mozart's music being as mainstream as his name. Not where I'm from and not in my experience.


I think Tchaikovsky probably has more recognisable tunes to the average non classical music listener than either Beethoven or Mozart

In fact - when I came to classical music at 24 and found Mozart - I recognised hardly any of the music - which surprised me - as every piece sounded to me like it should be well known.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2013)

stomanek said:


> In fact - when I came to classical music at 24 and found Mozart - I recognised hardly any of the music - which surprised me - as every piece sounded to me like it should be well known.


24. That's quite old.

I think I was about 3 months old when I first came into contact with Mozart. I remember my mother telling me that "you'll like this, now shut up and go to sleep".

The piece was K 265 _Twelve Variations on Ah vous dirai-je, maman_ ("Twinkle Twinkle Little Star")


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I think Tchaikovsky probably has more recognisable tunes to the average non classical music listener than either Beethoven or Mozart.


I think we agree here. I was surrounded by classical music my entire life. My father dragged me to the symphony. It wasn't until age 35 that I fell in love though.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Partita said:


> 24. That's quite old.
> 
> I think I was about 3 months old when I first came into contact with Mozart. I remember my mother telling me that "you'll like this, now shut up and go to sleep".
> 
> The piece was K 265 _Twelve Variations on Ah vous dirai-je, maman_ ("Twinkle Twinkle Little Star")


My parents never had music in the house. I listened to pop when I was a teenager. When I was 24 a friend lent me a tape with Kate Biush on one side - on the other was Mozart's pc no 21 - that started it all. I often feel quite special about that - like a finger pointed at me - as nobody encouraged me into classical music - it's my discovery.

But that time was right for me - oddly - when I was 20 I saw Amadeus at the cinema but it was another 4 years before my ears really opened.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

The scene from Amadeus where Mozart alters the Salieri piece is still one of the funniest scenes in movie history.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Funny, during his time Mozart seemed not to be very well liked. Compare that to Beethoven, the most famous man in Vienna during his time. The former-thrown into a pauper's grave; the latter given a huge state funeral.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Funny, during his time Mozart seemed not to be very well liked. Compare that to Beethoven, the most famous man in Vienna during his time. The former-thrown into a pauper's grave; the latter given a huge state funeral.


Mozart was very well admired during his time. The "pauper's grave" thing is a myth.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If it's a myth, then why doesn't anyone know where he's buried?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

hpowders said:


> If it's a myth, then why doesn't anyone know where he's buried?


He's buried in the St. Marx Cemetery outside Vienna. Details.

As for his contemporary reputation, Joseph Haydn told Leopold Mozart "I tell you before God, and as an honest man, your son is the greatest composer known to me by person and repute, he has taste and what is more the greatest skill in composition."

Here's an excerpt from a contemporary newspaper review of _Figaro_:



> But now, after several performances, one would be subscribing either to the cabal or to tastelessness if one were to maintain that Herr Mozart's music is anything but a masterpiece of art. It contains so many beauties, and such a wealth of ideas, as can be drawn only from the source of innate genius.


And these are excerpts from some reviews of _Don Giovanni_:



> Connoisseurs and musicians say that Prague has never heard the like





> Herr Mozart conducted in person and was welcomed joyously and jubilantly by the numerous gathering.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> He's buried in the St. Marx Cemetery outside Vienna. Details.


This inspired me to see if Mozart's famous skull was finally identified. Evidently not. Discussed in this National Geographic article, which also identifies his burial place as St. Sebastian Cemetery in Salzburg, contrary to Wiki. Strange. However, it seems that Mozart's remains were exhumed after a few years (as was typical for a commoner's grave) and possibly moved then to the family plot in Salzburg.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0109_060109_mozart_skull.html

My understanding is that Mozart was enormously popular at the time of his death, as ahammel says. There was practically an entire industry devoted to cranking out variations on his tunes, which everybody knew and which were played and sung in the streets. Even Beethoven dipped his oar in those waters a few times!


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> This inspired me to see if Mozart's famous skull was finally identified. Evidently not. Discussed in this National Geographic article, which also identifies the cemetery as St. Sebastian Cemetery in Salzburg, contrary to Wiki. Strange.


The Wiki cites Grove, who is certainly not infallible. Still, it seems strange that he would be buried in Salzburg and not Vienna.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ahammel said:


> The Wiki cites Grove, who is certainly not infallible. Still, it seems strange that he would be buried in Salzburg and not Vienna.


Well, Wiki says he was buried at St. Marx. It doesn't state that his remains are still there. It seems likely that he was exhumed in 1801 and his remains moved to the family plot in Salzburg, which actually doesn't conflict with Grove (or Wiki) at all. But I can't find any details of that with a quick search.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> I do notice that Elvis is on the list though...
> 
> By modern standards, his plant classification now looks utterly silly.


By modern standards both Goethe and Beethoven look utterly silly. 'Struth.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2013)

The suggestion that Mozart was not well liked in his lifetime is patently absurd.

He had occasional financial problems but that didn't mean that he was in any unpopular. The young Beethoven was reportedly sent to him for further study, but nobody is clear about whether the two actually met due to the fact that Beethoven's stay in Vienna was very short-lived on account of the need to return home to attend to his dying mother. Haydn thought very highly of Mozart, Mozart's operas were popular as too were several chamber and orchestral works, and he continued to receive several commissions, including of course that for the Requiem.

From what I have read, it would seem that Mozart's reputation may have begun to dim somewhat in the decades after his death, but his wife Constanze did her best to limit this by bringing his works to the fore as far as she was capable. This dimming (rather like that of J S Bach's decades earlier) was mainly the result of a gradual shift in popular taste, this time towards a new style of music pioneered by the likes of Rossini, and even Beethoven suffered partially from the same effects during his own lifetime. Another great composer of the same period, Schubert, found himself having to write some music in a similar "Italian" style in order to compete, but of course Mozart was unable to do so for obvious reasons.

As for Mozart's place of burial, in the concluding paragraph of the "_MozartForum_"'s biography of the great man it states:

"_Wolfgang Amadé Mozart was buried in a suburban churchyard in an unmarked grave with little ceremony, as was the custom at the time. Because the family and/or admirers did not immediately seek out the grave sight, its location became lost. Today, the monument to Mozart in that graveyard is located at the approximate site where perhaps the greatest composer the world has yet seen rests"._

As far as I'm aware, there is no further reliable information on this subject. If there is, it would surely be common knowledge by now, not the subject of mere speculation in obscure journals. This is, or ought to be, perfectly obvious.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mozart wasn't received well enough for the level of his abilities. Many times he was struggling to find work, and worrying about his family's income. Even Haydn was taken-aback by the lack of appreciation for him.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mstar said:


> I would say that Beethoven's music is much more well known than Mozart's generally, though the name Mozart is, yes, more famous.


You've named it but missed it  "Fame" means name recognition, and nothing else, i.e. in a household where no one ever listens to classical music of any sort, "Mozart" and maybe still "Pavarotti" are known names.

There is "fame," and a good reason for no one to get their knickers in a twist about Bach, or their preferred 'greats' not being on this sort of fame list.


----------

