# People Who Love Mozart Over Schoenberg are Intellectually Inferior?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I think if someone did an empirical study on the difference between people who love Mozart and people who love Schoenberg, they would find that the people who prefer Schoenberg to Mozart are infinitely smarter, and far more interesting. I think that people who love Mozart probably make for poor lovers. But all of this is merely my opinion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nonsense. There are any number of studies that prove, time and again, that people who prefer Mozart are smarter, larger, better looking, and entirely more competitive in the struggle for food, resources, and mating opportunities. I refer you to a casual web search for the sources (often just the abstracts, sorry).


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

Please don't do this... We don't need more chances for people to start fights...


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Klassic said:


> I think if someone did an empirical study on the difference between people who love Mozart and people who love Schoenberg, they would find that the people who prefer Schoenberg to Mozart are infinitely smarter, and far more interesting. I think that people who love Mozart probably make for poor lovers. But all of this is merely my opinion.


Investigate who was Einstein's most loved composer, for example. I doubt that anyone who loves Schoenberg more than Mozart would be "infinitely smarter" than Einstein.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Please don't do this... We don't need more chances for people to start fights...


Well... I don't want to start any fights. If this thread is unacceptable please forgive me and delete it. I certainly don't mean to cause any problems... although I suspect Schoenberg caused many problems with his music. I have been trying to draw out these Mozart people for days now, but they're too clever, they never take the bait. Maybe this settles the empirical question? I enjoy being on this forum and would never do anything to consciously sever my membership. I love hearing all the different views here.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

nathanb said:


> Please don't do this... We don't need more chances for people to start fights...


Yes, I think that threads like this one are toxic even if started for only humorous purposes.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I used to love Mahler over both of them until I developed benign prostate enlargement and couldn't sit through an hour and a half performance without a break. Had nothing to do with intelligence.
Sometimes as they say in Jersey, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> Yes, I think that threads like this one are toxic even if started for only humorous purposes.


Threads like this frequently get out of hand and closed down.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

See: "Why Darwin Loves Mozart: A Cross-dimensional Study of Sexual Success," University of Poughkeepsie, School of Composer Husbandry, 1996.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Klassic said:


> I think if someone did an empirical study on the difference between people who love Mozart and people who love Schoenberg, they would find that the people who prefer Schoenberg to Mozart are infinitely smarter, and far more interesting. I think that people who love Mozart probably make for poor lovers. But all of this is merely my opinion.


By the way before I forget, simply listening to classical music is not an intellectual pursuit, which is a commonly held belief of the pseudo-intellectual and the insecure which helps them feel "superior" when they couldn't be further from it.

I don't consider myself smart because I like listening to classical music. I consider myself privileged and lucky.

i reserve "smart" for the composers, not the listeners.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> Threads like this frequently get out of hand and closed down.


But surely you must know why God banished Father Lucifer from the Garden? Because he was causing everyone to have too much fun!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Klassic said:


> I think if someone did an empirical study on the difference between people who love Mozart and people who love Schoenberg, they would find that the people who prefer Schoenberg to Mozart are infinitely smarter, and far more interesting. I think that people who love Mozart probably make for poor lovers. But all of this is merely my opinion.


A poor lover? Why I oughta...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> ...benign prostate enlargement...


Yeah, Mahler'll do that to you.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Yeah, Mahler'll do that to you.


Had nothing to do with Mahler. It's called "aging".


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm pretty sure the OP intended to satire an attitude that in his/her opinion actually exists in the world, and to some degree I agree that it does. But it probably isn't as common as the OP believes. In fact, most people haven't heard of Schoenberg, so liking Mozart better than Scrablidlabeorngberg or whatever isn't going to mean much to anyone. They will be suitably impressed by your profession of love for Mozart.

Now the partisans of modernist music might feel that way, but they are such a minority that you should be able get along in life just fine without worrying about what they think of you. In the unlikely event that you find yourself at a party of people who look down on people who don't like Schoenberg, or on a date with an attractive person who feels that way, you can probably get away with saying things like, "Now that sounds really fascinating. I'll have to hear that sometime." They'll be happy with that and you'll get out alive. If you dare, you might just say that the string trio is one of your favorite works and change the subject by asking how they feel about Dusapin, a composer that you want to explore.

Maybe _I_ should write a guide to using classical music as social capital!


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

science said:


> I'm pretty sure the OP intended to satire an attitude that in his/her opinion actually exists in the world, and to some degree I agree that it does. But it probably isn't as common as the OP believes. In fact, most people haven't heard of Schoenberg, so liking Mozart better than Scrablidlabeorngberg or whatever isn't going to mean much to anyone. They will be suitably impressed by your profession of love for Mozart.


But this proves my syllogism: are there more smart people or stupid people in the world? More stupid people of course. And do more people like Mozart than Schoenberg: yes. Then to even like Schoenberg you have to be smarter than most people.


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

So, a statement disguised as a question, or is it merely a quip intended to offer something more? Either way I can't know for certain because of the way the OP is presented. Nevertheless, it's really quite fascinating what you are trying to excavate here, and all by way of conjecture. I don't know how one would be able to conduct such a study and at the end of it all assert the supposition," _they would find that the people who prefer Schoenberg to Mozart are infinitely smarter and far more interesting_" that you have advanced.

And no, "_I think that people who love Mozart probably make for poor lovers,_" just no!! It's rather disconcerting that you would presuppose such a thing, really!! People who love Mozart are more likely to be excellent lovers!:kiss:

Just a thought or two, really.

TPS


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

ProudSquire said:


> And no, "_I think that people who love Mozart probably make for poor lovers,_" just no!! It's rather disconcerting that you would presuppose such a thing, really!! People who love Mozart are more likely to be excellent lovers!


But my dear *Squire*, Mozart is so predictable!


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

Klassic said:


> But my dear *Squire*, Mozart is so predictable!


Quite the contrary, else, surely the masses would've caught on by now!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

nathanb said:


> Please don't do this... We don't need more chances for people to start fights...


Amen to this .

​


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

ProudSquire said:


> Quite the contrary, else, surely the masses would've caught on by now!


While yes *Squire*, I do believe you have a point here, Mozart has not "caught on" precisely because he is so unpredictable, while Schoenberg is the celebration of the masses. I would imagine that those who listen to Mozart make love like wild animals. One of my friends also said listening to Mozart is like wiping your bottom with silk, while listening to Schoenberg is like scraping your bottom with sackcloth. Poor Schoenberg, he never realized that Mozart already had it all figured out.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

Klassic said:


> One of my friends also said listening to Mozart is like wiping your bottom with silk, while listening to Schoenberg is like scraping your bottom with sackcloth.


What strange friends you have.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

This thread is my fault.

Apologies to all.

Doh!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Klassic said:


> But my dear *Squire*, Mozart is so predictable!


actually no - there is a study somewhere on the web - Beethoven was the most predictable composer and Mozart the least.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/beethoven-music-predictable-rhythm-120223.htm


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

As the recent question asks: Mozart with a magic flute vs. Beethoven with a machete. Who will win? The betting window is open... :lol:


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2016)

stomanek said:


> Beethoven was the most predictable composer and Mozart the least.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/tech/beethoven-music-predictable-rhythm-120223.htm


Not quite. The research suggested that Beethoven's rhythms were more predictable than Mozart's, not that he was a more predictable composer.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> What strange friends you have.


No, it's a literary tradition coming from Rabelais! A reference to one of the best chapters in his _Gargantua._


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Not quite. The research suggested that Beethoven's rhythms were more predictable than Mozart's, not that he was a more predictable composer.


And many musicians, including Milstein and Horowitz - have declared that rythm is the essence of music.
Sorry my friend - game set and match. Your man is as predictable as chocolate in a melting pot.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Even Schoenberg preferred Mozart to Schoenberg. Another nonsense thread... Way to show your superior intelligence preferrer of Schoenberg.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Even Schoenberg preferred Mozart to Schoenberg. Another nonsense thread... Way to show your superior intelligence preferrer of Schoenberg.


If only the conservative types showed a sense of humour


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

stomanek said:


> And many musicians, including Milstein and Horowitz - have declared that rythm is the essence of music.
> Sorry my friend - game set and match. Your man is as predictable as chocolate in a melting pot.


"Rhythm is the essence of music" is not synonymous with "music is only rhythm".

MacLeod is right - the article does not say what you claim it to say


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

dgee said:


> If only the conservative types showed a sense of humour


I have a fine sense of humor but it doesn't activate until I've been awake for more than 2 hours.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

This thread just proves that some people have too much time on their hands!

Oops, now you've caused me to take a break in my thumb-twiddling! Such a busy life!


----------



## Muse Wanderer (Feb 16, 2014)

Ahh I love both composers.

Mozart may be said to create complexity covered in simplicity. I listened to his Figaro so many times the intricate details within apparently simple lines are mesmerising. And these details are showing up now after a year of listening to so many versions. 

Schoenberg feels complex on initial listenings but after quite a few (many) listens that complexity becomes somewhat simpler. I now enjoy listening to his late string quartets, and his piano and opera works, there is so much beauty within them. 

Schoenberg is more akin to Bach's transfigurative music with a lot of Wagnerian romantic flavour in an entirely different language. He is so fascinating and never gets old.

Mozart manages to use his classical era tools with perfection creating towering masterpieces within apparent simple structures. 

I really need both. 

With respect to the OP question.... hmm does it really need to be answered?

It would have so many confounding factors and result in completely unfounded conclusions. 

It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> "Rhythm is the essence of music" is not synonymous with "music is only rhythm".
> 
> MacLeod is right - the article does not say what you claim it to say


I know - but rythm seems to me - the most central aspect of music.

the study at any rate speaks for itself. Beethoven is rythmically really quite predictable and mozart is not.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I thought one was supposed to think both composers were great.
I like most music by Mozart except for his operas in Italian because they have secco recitatives.
Schönberg is not one of my favourite composers but I don´t dislike his music and I prefer Erwartung over any Mozart opera.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

stomanek said:


> actually no - there is a study somewhere on the web - Beethoven was the most predictable composer and Mozart the least.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/tech/beethoven-music-predictable-rhythm-120223.htm


I have read the article - have you done so?

The article does not say what you claim it does.

Levitin, D.J., Chordia, P. and Menon, V., 2012. Musical rhythm spectra from Bach to Joplin obey a 1/f power law. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(10), pp.3716-3720.

There are some interesting points made in the article - such as the following:

Classical instrumental genres, such as quartets and sonatas, and a variety of other folk, dance, and sung music spanning nearly four centuries of compositions all demonstrated 1/f spectra .... We then analyzed how β-distributions varied across different genres of music. Symphonies and quartets had the largest β-values, indicating the most predictable rhythms. On the other hand, folk and modern styles, such as mazurka and ragtime, had among the smallest β-values, indicating the least-predictable rhythms.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

stomanek said:


> the study at any rate speaks for itself. Beethoven is rythmically really quite predictable and mozart is not.


The article clearly does *not* say that Mozart's rhythm is * not * predictable. You might wish it did so, but it doesn't.

As it says: "The 1/f structure allows us to quantify the range of predictability, self-similarity, or fractal-like structure within which listeners find aesthetic pleasure. *Critically, compositions across four centuries and several subgenres of Western classical music all demonstrated 1/f structure in their rhythm spectra*."


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I know - but rythm seems to me - the most central aspect of music.
> 
> the study at any rate speaks for itself. Beethoven is rythmically really quite predictable and mozart is not.


What in Swansea does rhythmic predictability have to do with anything, anyway? #minimalism


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I really do not know. It seems to me, and this is just an opinion, that intelligence has nothing to do with it. It is more a function of the personal experiences of the individual and what he has been exposed to.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Personally, I think it's very difficult to read the OP with comments like "_infinitely_ smarter" and "make for poor lovers" without believing this is jesting. I think most people have had fun with the thread as they should.

But in all seriousness, studies have shown that people who prefer Raff's 1st symphony to any of Boccherini's cello concertos are more likely to linger in front of hardware stores.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What if we love Beethoven over both Mozart and Schoenberg?


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I used to love Mahler over both of them until I developed benign prostate enlargement and couldn't sit through an hour and a half performance without a break. Had nothing to do with intelligence.
> Sometimes as they say in Jersey, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


I can sympathise, friend. Those who have never experienced this do not know how debilitating it is to one's enjoyment of classical music. Fortunately, my doctor was able to help.

I was getting tired of listening to the Minute Waltz.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Kivimees said:


> I can sympathise, friend. Those who have never experienced this do not know how debilitating it is to one's enjoyment of classical music. Fortunately, my doctor was able to help.
> 
> I was getting tired of listening to the Minute Waltz.


Ha! Ha! If it was an Arrau performance, it might have been 3 minutes!

I have my regular physical in two weeks. I'm considering asking for an alpha blocker. This class of drugs is supposed to relax the prostate and improve the problem.

Maybe in a few months I will be able to sit through Mahler's Eighth again without taking intermissions.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

stomanek said:


> actually no - there is a study somewhere on the web - Beethoven was the most predictable composer and Mozart the least.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/tech/beethoven-music-predictable-rhythm-120223.htm





MacLeod said:


> Not quite. The research suggested that Beethoven's rhythms were more predictable than Mozart's, not that he was a more predictable composer.





stomanek said:


> And many musicians, including Milstein and Horowitz - have declared that rythm is the essence of music.
> Sorry my friend - game set and match. Your man is as predictable as chocolate in a melting pot.


Do you really believe that this flimsy "argument" was "game set and match"? You keep astonishing me.

For the first time since I've joined this forum, I'm seriously considering using that much discussed forum function.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> This class of drugs is supposed to relax the prostate and improve the problem.
> 
> Maybe in a few months I will be able to sit through Mahler's Eighth again without taking intermissions.


(Seriously off-topic) There's also a procedure my urologist calls the roto-rooter. My uncle had this done and said it had great results. But I do suggest a sedative... :lol:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

DiesIraeCX said:


> For the first time since I've joined this forum, I'm seriously considering using that function that starts with an "i" (despite how useless I've heard it to be).


My piece of mind has improved since I have started using it.

One of the things I have learned is the vast majority of the members are pretty open minded.

It is only a small persistent vocal minority who carry on that if they dislike something it must be bad.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Klassic said:


> But this proves my syllogism: are there more smart people or stupid people in the world? More stupid people of course. And do more people like Mozart than Schoenberg: yes. Then to even like Schoenberg you have to be smarter than most people.


Thats the most stupid QED I have read for a while...I like it!


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I think you have to be fairly smart to understand Mozart and quite frankly most people I meet on a day to day basis wouldn't have a clue who Schoenberg is - a hair product, maybe? On the other hand Schoenberg is quite an impressive figure to pull out of the draw if you are in a heated argument with a musical imposter, and some of his music isn't bad either.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Alydon said:


> I think you have to be fairly smart to understand Mozart and quite frankly most people I meet on a day to day basis wouldn't have a clue who Schoenberg is - a hair product, maybe? On the other hand Schoenberg is quite an impressive figure to pull out of the draw if you are in a heated argument with a musical imposter, and some of his music isn't bad either.


It's funny the varying levels of "obscure" and "not obscure" there are. This kind of online crowd, like other such forums, is well acquainted with Schoenberg. For us, a more obscure figure would be, say, Mosolov or Lyatoshynsky, and even then I know a fair number of posters here may already be thinking: "Mosolov? Why, that name isn't at all obscure!"


----------



## Biwa (Aug 3, 2015)

Alydon said:


> I think you have to be fairly smart to understand Mozart and quite frankly most people I meet on a day to day basis wouldn't have a clue who Schoenberg is - *a hair product*, maybe? On the other hand Schoenberg is quite an impressive figure to pull out of the draw if you are in a heated argument with a musical imposter, and some of his music isn't bad either.


Now, there's something that makes a good lover. :lol:


----------

