# Mozart is boring (or is he?)



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I feel like this isn't a totally unpopular opinion. There's actually a lot of Mozart pieces I love, so it's impossible for me to say I flat-out dislike him. He's still obviously Mozart and he's still a genius with an undeniable charm, an "x-factor" that's made his music enduring for centuries. Yet I would describe the large body of his work as pretty, neatly made, and superbly dull music. I feel like he has this assortment of "stock melodies" he just recycles constantly, which aren't so much thematic material, more like melodic fragments or phrases. Honestly, if I were working on commission like that and had to meet multiple deadlines for pompous, entertainment-hungry aristocrats, I'd be recycling left and right too.

I remember playing one of his horn concertos with a community orchestra, going into it having never heard the piece before, and it sounded _exactly_ how I thought it was going to and all the said "stock melodies" put in an appearance. If I put my mind to it I could sit down and jot down at least 20 composers I think are more interesting than Mozart. I've heard that his later period of output is more harmonically daring and generally adventurous, but I don't think added complexity is something that makes music inherently better. You could argue Haydn did similar recycling, and he's barely removed from Mozart stylistically, and I still find Haydn way more interesting.

It's hard for me to blame someone for thinking classical music is boring when all they've been exposed to is Mozart, especially when it's been thrown at them in the context of elevator music (even though I still think it's boring, that is a grave injustice to the man's music). I think it's sad that so much of the general public associates classical music with waiting to get a root canal :lol:

This is what I like about him: that aforementioned "x-factor" charm, his gift for melody that seems so effortless, and how naturally and unforced the music flows, and also that from a compositional standpoint, a lot of the stuff he wrote isn't rocket science (as far as I know with my layman theory knowledge): the beauty comes out in its simplicity. He breaks down everything to its purest essence and it does not need anything else. However, this doesn't stop me from thinking a good portion of his works are still insipid and stagnant and that other composers, who came both before and after him, are way more expressive, creative, and interesting.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I think, like Haydn or Bach, volume works against Mozart here. These guys are writing before the era in which a tortured Romantic composer labored for twenty years on a single work. They're turning out popular music to make a quick buck, to play at dinner parties, or to commemorate regularly occurring church events.

So for "special" pieces, like the Requiem, one opera or another, the late symphonies, etc., things are a lot more memorable. But there are long stretches of work in which the "same tricks" are employed over and over - much like today's pop music.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Mozart is boring (or is he?)*

Certainly he is.
After all, what other composer has so universally bored into the souls of so many music lovers (listeners, performers, composers) with such a uniquely magical, profound yet utterly natural aesthetic of beauty? None that I can think of.
I'm all for being bored by Mozart.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

AS per my previous comment: This could never be boring.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I can see where you're coming from, but again it all comes down to personal taste. There are late Romantic composers whose general style just feel like generic atmospheric film music to me. And a lot of baroque masters before Bach feel like sewing machines (with no sense of operatic drama or effect). And Haydn is actually miles different from Mozart, I would not mistake anything like the developments of symphony k.550 first movement, divertimento k.334 first movement, or the chromaticism of Rondo in A Minor K.511 for Haydn.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think that Haydn was outstanding and innovative at working monothematically with themes in sonata-form, and had certainly some impact on Beethoven in that regard. But on what basis are you claiming he _"in the very least equalled and occasionally surpassed Mozart and Beethoven"_?
> Here are similar passages in both classicists:
> 
> *[ 0:30 ~ 0:50 ]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[ 14:30 ~ 14:50 ]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, I don't find harmonies like these in Haydn:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the G minor quintet K.516, after all its 3.5 movements of pathos, Mozart jokes in the end "I'm ok" to fool us into thinking he's happy, but he's crying in the inside. This feeling of "happy sadness and sad happiness", which I can't describe in words, is unique from Beethoven's variant: "triumph over tragedy",
> Haydn on the other hand I think always uses jokes for comedy and rarely ever goes beyond that.
> And He doesn't explore "darkness" like Mozart does:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I find the piano concerti, operas, and symphonies before No. 38 boring (I know, heresy...I’ve tried and simply don’t see the light). But I love a majority of the chamber works, the last few symphonies, the clarinet concerto, the sinfonia concertante, bits of the Requiem and other choral works, and quite a bit of the piano music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

As a test, I sampled some of his earlier stuff just by picking some numbered works randomly, Symphonies 17 and 23, Piano concerto 5, String Quartet 3, Serenade 4. And no, I cannot say any of it is boring. I had to wrench myself away from the music. I was totally absorbed. I've said before it's a shame that some considered minor composers are less recorded such as Tubin, Martinu, Rawsthorne, etc. than Mozart's earlier stuff, and still sympathize with those composers to some extent. I'm all for harmonically more daring stuff, but even the more minor stuff by Mozart still grabs me. It can't be all that derivative (not at all in my view), even though his music is very recognizable. It is always inventive.


----------



## Coach G

Mozart is boring (or is he?)

I used to think Mozart was boring and I more-or-less avoided Mozart during my young years. For me the composers I most gravitated to seemed to mirror the life cycle. When I was a young adult, I identified with Beethoven's sense struggle and heroism. During early middle age (about my 40s) I went big into Bach, becoming more religious and concerned about the great existential questions of life. Now that I'm heading into late middle age (in my 50s) I've gravitating more to Mozart's sense of balance and perfect beauty, as if the music practically writes itself.


----------



## SanAntone

> "There is no such thing on earth as an uninteresting subject; the only thing that can exist is an uninterested person."
> 
> ― G.K. Chesterton


Mozart was one of the greatest composers to ever walk the Earth. If his music fails to interest you, the reason is not that Mozart is uninteresting, but for some reason his music is not what you are seeking at this time of your life. Also, it is not really important whether you find Mozart's music interesting or not; just enjoy the music that does interest you. The important thing is to remember that appreciating music (all art) is subjective.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

To say "I find Mozart boring" is legit - I could never even begin to understand it, but each of us has to speak as we find.

To say "Mozart *is* boring" is to attempt to present such a view as objective truth, and sorry, but that is arrant nonsense.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Animal the Drummer said:


> To say "I find Mozart boring" is legit - I could never even begin to understand it, but each of us has to speak as we find.
> 
> To say "Mozart *is* boring" is to attempt to present such a view as objective truth, and sorry, but that is arrant nonsense.


Despite the provocative title (stirring the pot can be fun! :devil: ) I never said my opinion of his music was an objective truth and I think it's tacitly implied that I was expressing my subjective view. If anything I just simply wanted to prompt discussion and hear other people's thoughts on that matter who do appreciate him.


----------



## Guest002

Coach G said:


> Mozart is boring (or is he?)
> 
> I used to think Mozart was boring and more-or-less avoided Mozart during my young years. For me the composers I most gravitated to seemed to mirror the life cycle. When I was a young adult, I identified with Beethoven's sense struggle and heroism. During early middle age (about my 40s) I went big into Bach, becoming more religious and concerned about the great existential questions of life. Now that I'm heading into late middle age (in my 50s) I've gravitating more to Mozart's sense of balance and perfect beauty, as if the music practically writes itself.


Blimey. I'm in my mid-fifties... if you think you're in your "late middle age", I guess I'm doomed!

I found Bach in my mid-forties. I found him a mathematical revelation, not a religious one. (Not that diminishes anyone who _does_ find religion in Bach. I'm just saying that, for me, it wasn't the religion wot dun it.).

I have tried very hard to love Mozart, including re-cataloguing every single one of his works. It hasn't worked for me. I find him someone whose occasional masterpieces (Le Nozze di Figaro, late symphonies etc) shine brightly, but who otherwise I can miss, but with a guilty conscience (because I know I'm _supposed_ to find him miraculous, etc). I think _Amadeus_ has a lot to answer for!!

On my desert island, I don't think I'd have a single piece of Mozart. But I'd regret it on hot nights and cold mornings, nonetheless.

Short version: he's a very weird composer for me. Someone I don't love, someone I don't hate, someone I don't need, someone I'd miss. If you told me I'd never listen to Bach again, I'd cry. If you told me I'd never listen to Mozart again, I would feel devastated and then get on with things. I know no rational way of explaining it, basically.


----------



## ORigel

Mozart has many profound first rate works, but I do not listen to his second tier works because they are dull to me.


----------



## DavidA

"Before God and as an honest man I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name."
(Joseph Haydn to Leopold Mozart)

Please leave us alone to be bored by Mozart. Let the anti-musica brigade go elsewhere and welcome!


----------



## Itullian

ORigel said:


> Mozart has many profound first rate works, but I do not listen to his second tier works because they are dull to me.


What are the works you think are second tier?


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> What are the works you think are second tier?


Of course Mozart dashed off works that were for him 'second tier'. They were meant to be for background music for the nobility. The thing is such was his genius that much of that music is better than most composers' first tier


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> Mozart has many profound first rate works, but I do not listen to his second tier works because they are dull to me.


The same can be said of Beethoven, for example. I acknowledge him as a genius who produced many masterpieces, but I don't find his other works like Christ on the Mount of Olives Op.85 or Choral fantasie op.80 particularly interesting. (But I still respect people who do)


----------



## Itullian

His second tier works are pretty great imho.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find the piano concerti, operas, and symphonies before No. 38 boring (I know, heresy...I've tried and simply don't see the light)...


I think the Haffner (no. 35) is my favorite Mozart symphony, but yeah otherwise I agree about the symphonies. It's 35-41, and even then I think no. 40 is overplayed.

The piano concertos and operas though are glorious, especially the last 10 or so concertos and Marriage of Figaro and Così fan tutte.


----------



## Guest

'Boring' isn't an epithet I'd apply to any composer's works. It doesn't seem to be a pertinent term.


----------



## Barbebleu

I’m a big fan of the string quartets, the string quintets, the piano sonatas, the later symphonies, the concert arias, some of the piano concertos and the odd serenade or two. I can listen to the major operas but I’m not a huge fan. But nothing he wrote was second rate really.


----------



## tdc

He is one of the most interesting composers to me, and I find him consistently inspired. I listen to his music more than any other composer from the classical era. When I play Mozart on piano I feel like I am experiencing a kind of music that is really benefiting my spiritual and mental health in a way that is different from any other composer. His music is absolutely essential to me, I couldn't be without it.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find the piano concerti, operas, and symphonies before No. 38 boring (I know, heresy...I've tried and simply don't see the light). But I love a majority of the chamber works, the last few symphonies, the clarinet concerto, the sinfonia concertante, bits of the Requiem and other choral works, and quite a bit of the piano music.


My preferences in Mozart track pretty well with this, except I'd say that I don't find the early symphonies etc. boring, just not as great as 30 and after plus the extremely fine and interesting string quartets and quintets. I like to listen to Symphonies 12, 19, 24, 27, and the piano concerti in the car. Certainly I don't find a single piece of Mozart insipid. I also like to listen to _Die Zauberflöte_ sometimes on a rainy afternoon.


----------



## mbhaub

Mozart's music bores me, most of it. I can't remember the last time I put on a cd of any of the symphonies - probably before cds even came out! The last 6 symphonies are ok, but the earlier -- forget it. I don't care for any of the concertos: horn, bassoon, violin, piano. The operas - I walked out of the Vienna Staatsoper at the first intermission of Magic Flute I was so bored by it all. Just too early for my taste.

But...as a performer his music is a blast! It's fun to play any of the symphonies, overtures and I've even played The Marriage of Figaro at an opera festival. The part (bassoon 2) is quite challenging but it was so much fun to do - really puts your double tonguing to the test.

I'm not alone, either. There have been several big name composers who also didn't care for Mozart, Schoenberg among them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mbhaub said:


> I'm not alone, either. There have been several big name composers who also didn't care for Mozart, Schoenberg among them.






"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"





"When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."





"The idea for the recapitulation in the first movement of Schönberg's Fourth String Quartet follows exactly the execution of Mozart's G minor Symphony KV 550 and Jupiter Symphony KV 551."

In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why.
"My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner."


----------



## flamencosketches

mbhaub said:


> Mozart's music bores me, most of it. I can't remember the last time I put on a cd of any of the symphonies - probably before cds even came out! The last 6 symphonies are ok, but the earlier -- forget it. I don't care for any of the concertos: horn, bassoon, violin, piano. The operas - I walked out of the Vienna Staatsoper at the first intermission of Magic Flute I was so bored by it all. Just too early for my taste.
> 
> But...as a performer his music is a blast! It's fun to play any of the symphonies, overtures and I've even played The Marriage of Figaro at an opera festival. The part (bassoon 2) is quite challenging but it was so much fun to do - really puts your double tonguing to the test.
> 
> I'm not alone, either. There have been several big name composers who also didn't care for Mozart, Schoenberg among them.


Schoenberg didn't like Mozart?

"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart." - Arnold Schoenberg

Edit: Hammeredklavier, the "Mozart police", beat me to it


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

mbhaub said:


> Mozart's music bores me, most of it. I can't remember the last time I put on a cd of any of the symphonies - probably before cds even came out! The last 6 symphonies are ok, but the earlier -- forget it. I don't care for any of the concertos: horn, bassoon, violin, piano. The operas - *I walked out of the Vienna Staatsoper at the first intermission of Magic Flute I was so bored by it all*. Just too early for my taste.
> 
> But...as a performer his music is a blast! It's fun to play any of the symphonies, overtures and I've even played The Marriage of Figaro at an opera festival. The part (bassoon 2) is quite challenging but it was so much fun to do - really puts your double tonguing to the test.
> 
> I'm not alone, either. There have been several big name composers who also didn't care for Mozart, Schoenberg among them.


But those must've been some expensive tickets! 
I get it's useless to keep going with something just because it's a sunk cost, but I'm astonished.


----------



## tdc

mbhaub said:


> I'm not alone, either. There have been several big name composers who also didn't care for Mozart, Schoenberg among them.


Well, for one thing Schoenberg actually revered Mozart, for another one could point out that Cherubini, Weber, Chopin, Ravel, Vaughan Williams among others did not care for Beethoven's music.

You can find some big names criticizing Bach and Brahms too. When composers become considered among 'the greatest' it is more likely they will be criticized by some too. Its only natural because their music becomes held up as a kind of ideal or benchmark, and of course not everyone will agree.


----------



## JAS

Mozart must be boring. What has he done lately?


----------



## SanAntone

>>>>>>> deleted post <<<<<<<


----------



## Ethereality

Is Mozart the champion? Yes.

Is Mozart boring? I believe 'boring' is just one negative term. I've heard people use boring to describe Classical music before. I've heard much worse than 'boring.' If it pleases you. There is no perfect composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I know some people are put off by Mozart's "powdered-wig" elements of trilled cadences and rococo-style balanced phrases, but I think if you look at a deeper level, you'll find he actually has strong individuality and ingenious ideas.
I often listen to Mozart's direct predecessors and major contemporaries, especially contrapuntal/vocal works of J.E. Eberlin, J.A. Hasse, M. Haydn, etc. I just don't find in their works the kind of "angularities" Mozart uses to express his "peculiar side", the "weirdness" of his character.






For example, in 'Missa in honorem sanctissimae trinitatis K.167', which he wrote at age 17, there is this spontaneous chromaticism that he uses to modulate the piece from G minor to E major. ( 3:52 ) -which seems to foreshadow the "dodecaphonic" finale of his own K.550 symphony:

L. Bernstein: "The most breathtaking chromatic trip of all occurs in the final movement, which begins innocently enough, and isn't too eventful tonally throughout the whole exposition. But then, again comes the development section, and all hell breaks loose.
Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? What an inspired idea.. all the notes except the tonic.
It could easily pass for twentieth-century music, if we didn't already know it was Mozart.
But even that explosion of chromaticism is explainable in terms of the circle of fifths, not that I'd dream of burdening you with it. Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is classically contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor.
And, again, believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, the most Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."






Also look at the chromaticism of the et incarnatus est, 9:47 ~ 11:47. With its phrases of ascending chromatic fourths, it seems to foreshadow his own dissonance quartet.
All these remind me of the remark Brahms said to praise Idomeneo, "Mozart was young and brash when he wrote it."

I also once talked about the way to orchestrate the concluding fugue, which I find remarkable:
_"I find the Et vitam venturi (17:39) from Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis K167 remarkable how, in the middle of the fugal development, Mozart starts to gradually hint, nudge, and wink at the original Credo material (18:42) with strings, and uses the material to eventually reach a climax (19:19). Not sure how to describe it, but it conceptually reminds me of what the piano does in the midst of orchestral tutti in the beginning of Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No.2 (albeit they're completely different in style and genre)."_

*[ 26:00 ~ 32:30 ]*
*[ 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 ]*
*[ 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 ]*
*[ 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 ]*


----------



## hammeredklavier

*[ 4:57 ~ 5:46 ]
[ 8:50 ~ 11:53 ]
[ 17:42 ~ 19:32 ]*





*[ 2:35 ~ 4:00 ]
[ 5:12 ~ 8:00 ]*





*[ 2:54 ~ 3:24 ]
[ 5:39 ~ 6:41 ]
[ 7:30 ~ 7:50 ]
[ 13:13 ~ 15:27 ]*





*[ 2:30 ~ 3:30 ]*





Here's what I wrote about *K.243* in another thread:
"I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20. 
It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
_"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
[10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
as if "darkness" wasn't yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
[13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
[21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domini morientum"_.
[24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, a large double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
[34:25]: _"miserere nobis"_ (the final movement) quotes _"kyrie eleison"_ (the first movement) and develops on the theme."



hammeredklavier said:


> *K.257*
> gloria: the creeping chromaticism at 3:50
> credo: listen for the "drama" that starts in "et incarnatus est" ( 7:18 ), escalates in "crucifixus" ( 8:43 ) and climaxes in "sub pontio pilato" ( 9:21 ) . Notice this sort of dark chromaticism coming back at 11:30
> agnus dei: 20:30 see if you can feel the "dark clouds" gradually lifting


and *K.262*:
"Mozart wrote this at 10: 



But it wasn't until he studied with Padre Martini in Bologna and studied Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum 5 years later, he started to become seriously good at the stuff.
I think his Missa longa K.262 in C major (1775) is an interesting example to discuss. About how it's different in expressivity from the masterful Missa in honorem sanctissimae trinitatis (K.167, which he wrote two years earlier), and how Mozart starts to outgrow the influences of his father (and other Salzburg masters including Eberlin) in expressivity, and show-off many various aspects of contrapuntal composition (canon, fugato, double fugato, fugue, double fugue, triple fugue) with a "Look, daddy! No hands!" attitude.
Kyrie: contains sections of double fugues in sonata-ritornello form [0:32]. It has a striking development in a darker color [1:46].
Gloria: contains sections of expressive counterpoint, for example, _"Domine fili.."_ [4:25], 
_"miserere"_ [5:10].
Cum sanctu spiritu [6:50] is a triple fugue with its own _"Cum sanctu spiritu"_ subject, and two separate subjects of _"amen"_ derived from the Gloria movement. Intricately developed with use of strettos.
Credo: I like the harmonies in sections like _"Et ex patre.."_ [9:17] in the initial material. After them, there are sections of expressive double fugatos like the _"Et incarnatus est"_ [10:48] and the _"Et homo factus est"_ [11:21].
Notice the change of mood that comes with the dramatic fugato in C minor, _"crucifixus"_ [11:41].
The little "reverse" canonic section of _"Qui ex patre"_ [14:38] is also noteworthy. 
The _"Et vitam venturi"_ fugue [17:02], which concludes the credo movement, contains moments of dramatic use of dissonance in the form of strettos [18:10, 18:42]
Sanctus: I like the _"hosanna"_ fugue [20:23]; short, but glorious in character.
Benedictus: expressive counterpoint in the form of fugatos _"Benedictus qui venit.."_ [22:32].
Listen to the top voice rising expressively, _"in no - me - ne .."_ in the F major section [23:18]
Agnus dei: darker contrasting sections of "canonic" character, _"miserere"_ [25:02]
The movement concludes with the serene _"Dona nobis pacem"_, composed of material derived from the Gloria movement."


----------



## ORigel

Itullian said:


> What are the works you think are second tier?


Prussian string quartets, piano sonatas

I may change my mind in time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

View attachment 142941
















I like the direction Mozart was heading towards in his late years. It's not quite the kind of chromaticism Romantic composers would later use to express extreme human emotions, 
but rather a kind of controlled, abstract chromaticism that evokes a sense of nostalgia for Classicism.


















So, my view on 'what makes Mozart good' overlaps with Schoenberg and Wagner's. Mozart has a lot of interesting "peculiarities", elements of "spice" that are, I think, sometimes overlooked by many people.










Hans Keller's <Strict serial technique in Classical music> is an interesting read regarding this topic:
(it's only 9 pages long, free to read online if you register)

"we note that K 428 in E♭ is another quartet of which the youthful Schoenberg had acquired an intimate, inside knowledge. The canonic opening of the first movement's development section (Ex. 3), which exposes the twelve notes within the narrowest space, is a mature example of strict serialism: an anti- (tri-) tonal row of three notes and its mirror forms (BS, I, R, RI) revolves both horizontally and vertically underneath the rotations of its own segmental subordinate row, which is a series in extremest miniature consisting of two notes at the interval of a minor second.








This is purest Schoenberg. In a forthcoming Mozart symposium, I am in fact trying to demonstrate that the passacaglia from the chamber-musical Pierrot lunaire is actually if unconsciously modelled on this development. At the same time, the latter's technique looks far into Schoenberg's own future, down to the (pan)tonal serial technique of the Ode to Napoleon. Beside unifying the anti-harmonic passage as such, that is to say, Mozart's strict serial method has to conduct it back into its wider, harmonic context, whence the series continue to rotate down to the perfect C minor cadence, every note of which remains serially determined."

"our analysis shows that even this early Mozart example (K.156) is far more Shoenbergian, more serial than the late Beethoven example (Op.135)."
"Mozart seems to have employed serial technique far more often than Beethoven."






"Schoenberg now proudly described himself as Mozart's pupil - and the final movement of the Suite, the 'Gigue', comes close to explicit homage to the G major Gigue, KV 574, in which Mozart at his most neo-Baroque and most harmonically chromatic seems almost to anticipate elements of Schoenberg's serial method."
( Arnold Schoenberg, By Mark Berry, Page 135 )

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


----------



## SixFootScowl

I have no idea if Mozart is boring. I don't listen to Mozart much, nor Bach or Haydn. I think it is just that I don't get that excited over any of it, preferring Beethoven and others that came later.


----------



## Rogerx

Related topic

https://www.talkclassical.com/58464-mozart-my-enemy.html?highlight=Mozart


----------



## Gallus

Listen to one of his operas. To call *that *boring is to be a total clod.

Don Giovanni is intelligent, funny, tragic, ironical, gripping, tearful...to watch it and not call Mozart a total genius, I don't know what to say...


----------



## Ethereality

What's ironic is that Mozart is the absolute inventor of excitement and the antithesis of boredom. Hear how he changed music forever starting from the early dopey Haydn years, to his later breakthroughs of humanitarian sensations and contrapuntal epochs, paving the groundwork for Beethoven's more catchy, romanticized approach. There was no one like Mozart; he is the master of form. Beethoven was the master of melody, Bach was the master of harmony, and both had brilliant form at times. Beethoven wove his melodies together like silk, Bach created whole new atmospheres through counterpoint and instrumentation, but Mozart was the king of complex interconnections.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> ...There was no one like Mozart; he is the master of form. Beethoven was the master of melody, Bach was the master of harmony, and both had brilliant form at times. Beethoven wove his melodies together like silk, Bach created whole new atmospheres through counterpoint and instrumentation, but Mozart was the king of complex interconnections.


Eh? You can't get much more "complex interconnections" than the B Minor Mass or the Missa solemnis. Nope, sorry. Doesn't make sense.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Eh? You can't get much more "complex interconnections" than the* B Minor Mass* or the Missa solemnis. Nope, sorry. Doesn't make sense.


"Smaller interactions" can't be more complex than the larger, more balanced and mirrored ones. That's why Classical form happened and to this day is the most complex form of music. Bach writing pattern-based music in an expansive layout is not good enough. Bach I think is at the pinnacle with Mozart, but more harmonically and atmospherically with his expansive approach. Mozart was all about musical structure and getting the perfect complete picture, and harmony (Bach) and rhythm/melody (Beethoven) could only be a servant of that structure.


----------



## Guest

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I don't think added complexity is something that makes music inherently better.


Agreed.

The problem I have with 'boring' is that it seems to me an inadequate description to use as a response. I'm not a Mozart fan, owning only a few symphonies, but if I were to say what it is that means I'm not buying more, or listening to more, 'boring' wouldn't do.

(Sorry, haven't time at the moment to elaborate.)


----------



## DavidA

Just one word for those who find Mozart boring. Don’t argue about it. Just don’t listen to it! There are plenty who will!


----------



## Jacck

DavidA said:


> Just one word for those who find Mozart boring. Don't argue about it. Just don't listen to it! There are plenty who will!


just one word for those who like Mozart. Don't argue with those who have a different view. Just don't read threads critical of Mozart. There are plenty of people who find Mozart boring!


----------



## consuono

> That's why Classical form happened and to this day is the most complex form of music. Bach writing pattern-based music in an expansive layout is not good enough.


I just don't think that's true. The inversions and counterpoint within counterpoint in just fugue 22 from WTC II refute that. Which is not to say that in itself makes fugue 22 "great". And I love Haydn and Mozart. I don't see how Classical sonata form is any more "complex" than the Baroque dance suites and sonatas that preceded it, and I certainly don't see how it's more complex than the fugue.


----------



## Enthusiast

JAS said:


> Mozart must be boring. What has he done lately?


Reminds me of the Beecham story of his (Beecham's) birthday when he was going through the greetings he received and supposedly said wistfully "nothing from Mozart?"


----------



## erudite

Personally I wish Mozart had lived longer.

To my mind he was just getting started in his last decade…

I enjoy his later compositions. The earlier works I find… well… _boring_? But that is just my personal preference and says a whole lot more about me than Mozart's genius. *shrug*


----------



## consuono

erudite said:


> Personally I wish Mozart had lived longer.
> 
> To my mind he was just getting started in his last decade…


Yeah, I think so too.


----------



## janxharris

erudite said:


> Personally I wish Mozart had lived longer.
> 
> To my mind he was just getting started…


Just about my feelings too.


----------



## Enthusiast

I have loved Mozart since I was younger than 10. His was the first classical music I got to know and love ... and I have never looked back. There are Mozart works which are not great masterpieces and some are not even especially delightful. The earlier the works the more likely they fit this description (before, say, K 300 you have to sift through quite a lot to find the special pieces). But, it does astonish me to even read lukewarm responses to his overall achievement - even though I am seasoned in reading negative views of music I love - because so much of what he did is so absolutely great that I cannot get how so many cannot hear it! 

The piano concertos (particularly from 17 onward); the symphonies (at least from 35 onward but there are many really good ones from before that); the quartets (at least from K387 onward) and quintets; the piano sonatas; so many of the greatest operas ever, and numerous and odd often late works (clarinet concerto and quintet, requiem, piano quartets, sinfonia concertante K364 etc) - this is a huge body of great works. I am not sure any other composer came close to such an achievement. 

I have not mentioned many of the concertos (for horn, for violin, etc) which, although good, seem to me more popular than they deserve. But when there is so much that is so very great why stray to the lesser works? 

One of the things I love about Mozart is that the greatness in much of his music is not easy to categorise. With Beethoven or Bach or even Haydn the reason for the music being so damn good is easy to pigeonhole. But I don't find this the case with Mozart. Even knowing and loving so much great Mozart I am not sure I could come up with a simple formula for what I like about each piece.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I have love Morzat since I was younger than 10. His was the first classical music I got to know and love ... and I have never looked back. There are Mozart works which are not great masterpieces and some are not even especially delightful. The earlier the works the more likely they fit this description (before, say, K 300 you have to sift through quite a lot to find the special pieces). But, it does astonish me to even read lukewarm responses to his overall achievement - even though I am seasoned in reading negative views of music I love - because so much of what he did is so absolutely great that I cannot get how so many cannot hear it!
> 
> The piano concertos (particularly from 17 onward); the symphonies (at least from 35 onward but there are many really good ones from before that); the quartets (at least from K387 onward) and quintets; the piano sonatas; so many of the greatest operas ever, and numerous and odd often late works (clarinet concerto and quintet, requiem, piano quartets, sinfonia concertante K364 etc) - this is a huge body of great works. I am not sure any other composer came close to such an achievement.
> 
> I have not mentioned many of the concertos (for horn, for violin, etc) which, although good, seem to me more popular than they deserve. But when there is so much that is so very great why stray to the lesser works?
> 
> One of the things I love about Mozart is that the greatness in much of his music is not easy to categorise. With Beethoven or Bach or even Haydn the reason for the music being so damn good is easy to pigeonhole. But I don't find this the case with Mozart. Even knowing and loving so much great Mozart I am not sure I could come up with a simple formula for what I like about each piece.


And of course you didn't mention the fact he just happened to write four of the greatest operas ever! And at least three of the others aren't half bad!


----------



## DavidA

erudite said:


> Personally I wish Mozart had lived longer.
> 
> To my mind he was just getting started in his last decade…
> 
> I enjoy his later compositions. The earlier works I find… well… _boring_? But that is just my personal preference and says a whole lot more about me than Mozart's genius. *shrug*


Yes although his earlier works can be beautifully crafted there are so many works of his later genius that I don't tend to bother with his earlier ones either. Life is short!


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> And of course you didn't mention the fact he just happened to write four of the greatest operas ever! And at least three of the others aren't half bad!


I did - in my second paragraph - and in almost the same words.


----------



## consuono

> I am not sure any other composer came close to such an achievement.


Bach. He didn't just come close, he set an impossibly high bar. He lived three decades longer than Mozart, but not even Mozart produced a body of work as uniformly excellent.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Uniformity, perhaps, but for sheer variety ... and in a relatively new aesthetic? I'm not so sure.


----------



## consuono

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Uniformity, perhaps, but for sheer variety ... and in a relatively new aesthetic? I'm not so sure.


Sheer variety? Among Bach's keyboard works alone are the English and French suites, Partitas, Italian Concerto and French Overture, WTC I and II, Goldberg Variations, organ trio sonatas, Inventions and Sinfonias, Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue, organ chorale preludes, the Organ Mass (one of the greatest but least-known works in music)...on and on. I don't know what a "new aesthetic" is. Mozart, like Bach, assimilated influences and added his own voice and creativity. In Mozart's case, that was primarily J. C. Bach and the Haydns.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Let's not have this conversation! I meant not only variety within a few genres - all major composers achieve that IMO - but mastery of such a range of genres - opera, church music, quartets, other chamber music, concertos, symphonies, piano sonatas etc. Beethoven came closest to this. I suppose you might say (if I were to put words into your mouth) that you don't care for what he did in some of those genres - and that would be your right - but that is beside the point I was making. Mastery of genres is not necessarily the be all and end all, of course.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I know that one day I will see the Mozart light in all its glory. For now he sits at No. 15 or so on my list of favorites, and some of the comments I see exalting his music have not only confused me but frustrated me - I really want to personally experience the profundity of this music but seem totally unable to! Like I said he wrote many works that I love but also many of the works I don’t care for (especially piano concerti and operas) are routinely praised to the high heavens and I can’t even begin to understand why. I see him as a great composer with several masterworks (on par with Haydn), not among the greatest geniuses ever. I love to use his music as a “de-stresser” after rough days and I find it has a sort of pure, soothing effect on me. But somehow it doesn’t add up to the satisfaction I get with Bach, Brahms, Ravel, Mahler, and my other top-tier favorites. Sometimes I just don’t feel like I’m hearing what I’m “supposed” to be hearing in Mozart and it bothers me. The only way to remedy that, I’ve found, is to keep listening - it’s happened with so many other composers and I’m confident it will happen someday with Wolfie.


----------



## SanAntone

To be honest, the only Mozart I listen to regularly are the *operas* and *sacred music*. The operas are something of an obsession with me. I used to enjoy his instrumental works, but I never listen to his orchestral works and his keyboard sonatas. His chamber music will occasionally play around my house.

My fault, entirely.


----------



## larold

I would say without question Mozart is among the least boring composers. This is not because he excelled at virtually everything; it is because he has the greatest variance of light and shade in music -- subtlety combined with power and majesty. He has Debussy's subtlety, Wagner's power, Beethoven's demonic drive, Bach's ability to write church music and praise God, and Schubert's knack for melody. Yet he wrote in the Classical era so there is no exaggeration in his music. He probably would have become an exaggeration had he lived to his 40s.


----------



## OperasAndPassions

Bach was prolific, but was a genius, always releasing excellent works.

Schubert was even more prolific, considering his lifespan, but was a genius, always releasing excellent works.

Mozart was prolific, but was a fake myth who became popular and fools everyone until today, similar to Beatles.


----------



## SanAntone

^^^ Your name wouldn't be Rob Newman, would it?


----------



## OperasAndPassions

larold said:


> He has Debussy's subtlety, Wagner's power, Beethoven's demonic drive, Bach's ability to write church music and praise God, and Schubert's knack for melody..


Power? Demonic drive? Ability to write church music? Melody?
All he has is ability to write what we call nowadays "jingle music" and "cell phone rings"
And comparing Mozart to all those geniuses (well, Wagner is crap too, but not so much as Mozart) makes that statement even more absurd.


----------



## jdec

OperasAndPassions said:


> Mozart was prolific, but was a fake myth who became popular and fools everyone until today, similar to Beatles.


The most stupid comment I have heard or read this year.


----------



## jdec

OperasAndPassions said:


> Power? Demonic drive? Ability to write church music? Melody?
> All he has is ability to write what we call nowadays "jingle music" and "cell phone rings"
> And comparing Mozart to all those geniuses (well, Wagner is crap too, but not so much as Mozart) makes that statement even more absurd.


You're exposing your foolishness too much by now.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> I just don't think that's true. The inversions and counterpoint within counterpoint in just fugue 22 from WTC II refute that. Which is not to say that in itself makes fugue 22 "great". And I love Haydn and Mozart. I don't see how Classical sonata form is any more "complex" than the Baroque dance suites and sonatas that preceded it, and I certainly don't see how it's more complex than the fugue.


You're talking about small-scale harmonic complexity, but are missing overall foundational complexity, which advanced from Handel and the infant stages of the Classical time period, to it's most advanced and acclaimed, and is what gave liscence through its monumental framework to a plethora of Early Romantic transformations. Bach doesn't compile matrices with the forms themselves, but with harmony alone. Mozart builds foundational complexity from the ground up, this is how his most popular music gains recognition. You won't find a composer nearly as excellent in all levels of structure, even the illustrious examples you give whilst harmonically surpassing most works I've heard, are not Tier 1 in the complexity of interactions via form. Beethoven comes closest to Mozart, but he sacrifices structure usually for longer melodic interactions and isn't able (or interested in) tying a big picture together as profoundly. That doesn't diminish the other Big 3s statuses, because their skills lie in totally different areas.


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> You're talking about small-scale harmonic complexity, but are missing the complexity of overall structure, which advanced from the infant stages of the Classical time period to it's most acclaimed, and gave liscence in its monumental framework to a plethora of Early Romantic transformations. You won't find a composer nearly as great in structure as Mozart, even the illustrious examples you give while harmonically surpassing most works I've heard, are not at Tier 1 in the complexity of interactions via form. Beethoven comes closest to Mozart, but he sacrifices structure usually for longer melodic interactions and isn't able (or interested in) tying a big picture together as profoundly.


Surely, form isn't something that can be measured objectively? Music is an abstract art and the structural elements that lie behind that music will be too.


----------



## Woodduck

OperasAndPassions said:


> Mozart was prolific, but was a fake myth who became popular and fools everyone until today, similar to Beatles.
> 
> All he has is ability to write what we call nowadays "jingle music" and "cell phone rings"
> 
> Wagner is crap too, but not so much as Mozart
> 
> not even Metal can save Stravinsky music for being complete crap


It's good to know where the crap is so that we can avoid stepping in it.

Or am I stepping in it now?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> You're talking about small-scale harmonic complexity, but are missing the complexity of overall structure, which advanced from the infant stages of the Classical time period to it's most acclaimed, and gave liscence in its monumental framework to a plethora of Early Romantic transformations. You won't find a composer nearly as great in structure as Mozart, even the illustrious examples you give while harmonically surpassing most works I've heard, are not at Tier 1 in the complexity of interactions via form. Beethoven comes closest to Mozart, but he sacrifices structure usually for longer melodic interactions and isn't able (or interested in) tying a big picture together as profoundly. That doesn't diminish the other Big 3s statuses, because their skills lie in totally different areas.


There's plenty of other music as finely structured as Mozart's. There are many kinds of structures, some departing greatly from, or having nothing to do with, the Classical models which your statement suggests you consider inherently superior.


----------



## Ethereality

Can you give examples? If Bach is the master of harmony and Beethoven is the master of melodic expression and interaction, then Mozart doesn't need to be the greatest of the 3. But give an example of a composer who has greater structure than Mozart has.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Can you give examples?


Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Sibelius... Just to name some of the greatest composers who produced numerous works at once complex and structurally flawless.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck, I understand your stance of all composers are equal, though I'm not seeing it in this particular category. I forgot to mention Brahms, good namedrop. He's often considered midway Mozart-Beethoven in many areas, and so not quite at Mozart's dedicated fixation and care for structure, but someone I'd often consider 2nd here with Beethoven. I agree with janxharris that often defining and agreeing on vague terms, such as 'form', can be a difficult process, but upon further study I don't think it's hard to understand why Mozart is in the Big 3. There's no other category of music that quite fits him as does structure at all levels. Such a focus is not necessarily peoples' cup of tea however, I don't urge individuals to start stringently over-concerning themselves on form at every level.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Woodduck, I understand your stance of 'all composers are equal', though I'm not seeing it in this particular category.


I don't take that stance. You must be thinking of someone else.



> I forgot to mention Brahms, good namedrop. He's often considered midway Mozart-Beethoven in many areas, and so not quite at Mozart's dedicated fixation and care for structure, but someone I'd often consider Tier 1 there. I agree with janxharris that often defining and agreeing on vague terms, such as 'form', can be a difficult process, but in this case I don't think it's that hard to understand why Mozart is in the Big 3. There's no other category of music that quite fits him as does perfect structure. Such a focus is not necessarily peoples' cup of tea however, I don't urge individuals to start stringently over-concerning about form.


I understand perfectly why Mozart is classed among the "big 3." Pressed to rank composers, I put him there myself. I also acknowledge his impeccable command of structure. I merely make the point that there are many ways to put a piece of music together which perfectly satisfy one's sense of form.


----------



## Ethereality

Alright. I'm not too concerned with peoples' impressions of form, as though it's some afterthought not conscious of when comparing the two. I'm referring to noted perfections in every scope of form within a work, forms within forms that can continue to be picked apart from a fresh and puzzling perspective. No one quite like Mozart can capture such amazement in quotes from famous composers. Bach's music has a purely segmented, object-oriented design in its application of 'passage', a genius that lies within a purely different study than Classical: the study of harmonic and rhythmic interactions and their potentials for proximity. Bach doesn't compile matrices with the forms themselves, but with harmony alone. Mozart builds foundational complexity from the ground up, this is how his most popular music gains recognition. To misunderstand that is a common error of the unschooled.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I know that one day I will see the Mozart light in all its glory. For now he sits at No. 15 or so on my list of favorites, and some of the comments I see exalting his music have not only confused me but frustrated me - I really want to personally experience the profundity of this music but seem totally unable to! Like I said he wrote many works that I love but also many of the works I don't care for (especially piano concerti and operas) are routinely praised to the high heavens and I can't even begin to understand why. I see him as a great composer with several masterworks (on par with Haydn), not among the greatest geniuses ever. I love to use his music as a "de-stresser" after rough days and I find it has a sort of pure, soothing effect on me. But somehow it doesn't add up to the satisfaction I get with Bach, Brahms, Ravel, Mahler, and my other top-tier favorites. Sometimes I just don't feel like I'm hearing what I'm "supposed" to be hearing in Mozart and it bothers me. The only way to remedy that, I've found, is to keep listening - it's happened with so many other composers and I'm confident it will happen someday with Wolfie.


This pretty much sums up where I'm what with Herr Mozart. I get glimpses of the sublime but maybe I'm just not ready at this point in my life to fully appreciate him.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> just one word for those who like Mozart. Don't argue with those who have a different view. Just don't read threads critical of Mozart. There are plenty of people who find Mozart boring!


Ah so this is only for negative minded people? Sorry!


----------



## DavidA

OperasAndPassions said:


> Bach was prolific, but was a genius, always releasing excellent works.
> 
> Schubert was even more prolific, considering his lifespan, but was a genius, always releasing excellent works.
> 
> *Mozart was prolific, but was a fake myth who became popular and fools everyone until today, similar to Beatles.*


And who are you trying to fool? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> This pretty much sums up where I'm what with Herr Mozart. I get glimpses of the sublime but maybe I'm just not ready at this point in my life to fully appreciate him.


Never mind. Keep taking the tablets. I think they are called Beecham's Pills!


----------



## consuono

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Let's not have this conversation! I meant not only variety within a few genres - all major composers achieve that IMO - but mastery of such a range of genres - opera, church music, quartets, other chamber music, concertos, symphonies, piano sonatas etc. Beethoven came closest to this. I suppose you might say (if I were to put words into your mouth) that you don't care for what he did in some of those genres - and that would be your right - but that is beside the point I was making. Mastery of genres is not necessarily the be all and end all, of course.


No, Bach didn't compose operas, symphonies, quartets and piano concertos and Mozart may not have either if someone hadn't done so before him. Bach composed in most genres current at his time except opera...and it wasn't because he couldn't compose vocal music.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Alright. I'm not too concerned with peoples' impressions of form, as though it's some afterthought not conscious of when comparing the two. I'm referring to noted perfections in every scope of form within a work, forms within forms that can continue to be picked apart from a fresh and puzzling perspective. No one quite like Mozart can capture such amazement in quotes from famous composers. Bach's music has a purely segmented, object-oriented design in its application of 'passage', a genius that lies within a purely different study than Classical: the study of harmonic and rhythmic interactions and their potentials for proximity. Bach doesn't compile matrices with the forms themselves, but with harmony alone. Mozart builds foundational complexity from the ground up, this is how his most popular music gains recognition. To misunderstand that is a common error of the unschooled.


You're going to have to give some examples of "building foundational complexity from the ground up", "form within form" and "compiling matrices with the forms themselves". Mozart's music (and sonata form itself) is far more "segmented" than is flowing counterpoint. "Form within form" is as much a description of the Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue as anything by Mozart. Probably more so.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DavidA said:


> Never mind. Keep taking the tablets. I think they are called Beecham's Pills!


I've never understood this mentality. I love Bruce Springsteen - my best friend from college thinks Bruce Springsteen wrote the most generic, corny music ever and thinks his voice sounds like a toad. It doesn't hamper my enjoyment of Springsteen at all. I took him to a Baroque concert one time and he even thought Bach was dull and primitive and music's evolved so much more since then. That's heresy to me, but the same thing applies.


----------



## Bulldog

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I've never understood this mentality. I love Bruce Springsteen - my best friend from college thinks Bruce Springsteen wrote the most generic, corny music ever and thinks his voice sounds like a toad. It doesn't hamper my enjoyment of Springsteen at all. I took him to a Baroque concert one time and he even thought Bach was dull and primitive and music's evolved so much more since then. That's heresy to me, but the same thing applies.


The problem is not your opinions about Mozart's music but that you created a thread about the subject.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Bulldog said:


> The problem is not your opinions about Mozart's music but that you created a thread about the subject.


I wanted to express my opinion and hear other's opinions on the subject who disagree and like him, hoping to learn something and prompt discussion. I enjoy hearing people's thoughts even if I disagree with them, and after all isn't a forum about discussion? I've enjoyed reading what people have had to say so far. Perhaps I was a bit too blunt in the OP and it came off the wrong way.


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> You're going to have to give some examples of "building foundational complexity from the ground up", "form within form" and "compiling matrices with the forms themselves". Mozart's music (and sonata form itself) is far more "segmented" than is flowing counterpoint. "Form within form" is as much a description of the Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue as anything by Mozart. Probably more so.


Quite right, not to mention this:






Does Mozart have any pieces that are meant to be played in both directions and then superimposed on one another? I'm not aware of any. I suspect not all the riddles within Bach's varied forms are even understood to this day.


----------



## tdc

To be honest I've started to ignore Ethereality's posts, because they often contain such backward arguments, that I suspect this poster writes them only with the intention of getting attention. But occasionally there is something so blatantly and demonstrably false it should be called out.



Ethereality said:


> Bach doesn't compile matrices with the forms themselves, but with harmony alone.


"Bach creates in the Goldbergs several structural devices that reflect his fascination with mathematical principles, or even numerology. The work consists of 32 movements on a bass-line of 32 bars, as if the microcosm reflects the macrocosm. The whole divides into two halves: variation 15, the halfway point, is the first of the three minor numbers, ending with the hands drifting further and further apart. 'Variation 16' is a new beginning: a spectacular French Overture filled with grand French-style double-dotted rhythms and florid embellishments, the second section an up-tempo contrast.

Within that larger structure, the variations are grouped in threes. Every third one is a canon (like a 'round'), its imitative voices set at a progressively wider interval each time: variation 3 is a canon on the unison, no. 6 with the distance of a second, and so forth, until no. 27 reaches a ninth. Alongside these in each group of three, Bach places a free-form piece, often dance-like or in a 'genre', such as a Gigue (no. 7) or a Fughetta (no. 10; and a toccata, a chance for virtuoso display aplenty. These groupings may have extra numerological significance, since the number three often symbolises the Holy Trinity.

The work's fount of symbolism is unlikely to stop there. Such matters were common practice within Baroque paintings; music, too, could often be "read" by audiences of the day, drawing on references from ancient classical worlds or the Bible that would have been standard for many well-educated listeners, but which fewer of us today are lucky enough to share. For instance, one academic theory published about 20 years ago explored the striking notion that the Goldberg Variations might be an allegory of ascent through the nine dimensions of Ptolomeic cosmology, from the Earth to the Fixed Stars, each free-form variation symbolising a planetary stage in the journey. The lyrical no. 13 would represent Venus, the planet of the goddess of love; no. 25, often called the "Black Pearl", would be Saturn, full of dissonances that intimate pain, death and mourning; and in no. 29, the Fixed Stars twinkle high over a shimmering background of trills."

https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/bach-goldberg-variations-masterpiece-guide/


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I admire Bach for organizing that way formally, but I don't think it has anything to do with how one listens and perceives the music. I don't think those things can be picked out and appreciated by ear over such a long term. Also is there any evidence that Bach used matrices in his music?


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> You're going to have to give some examples of "building foundational complexity from the ground up", "form within form" and "compiling matrices with the forms themselves". Mozart's music (and sonata form itself) is far more "segmented" than is flowing counterpoint. "Form within form" is as much a description of the Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue as anything by Mozart. Probably more so.


I often find Ethereality's posts a bit too vague to understand fully because he talks in vague expressions such as "building foundational complexity from the ground up", without giving examples. Nevertheless, I'm reminded of the time me and other forum members talked about "cyclic technique", I think it was Woodduck, EdwardBast (or someone else, I don't remember exactly) who said that the Art of the Fugue is a mere "collection of fugues", so it doesn't count as a type of cyclic form. Variations are supposed to build on given themes, so they don't count as a type of cyclic form either. I think that it is one of those things in classical music that can't be defined precisely, but rather depends on how you view or interpret it:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...-cyclic-form/EF586221A63CED34F6A22761783653D0
The idea of cyclic form, by Benedict Taylor:
"The very term 'cyclic form' is confusing. Hans Keller was exaggerating only a little when he described it as 'one of the most senseless technical terms in the rich history of musicological nonsense'. In fact, it is almost obligatory for commentators to offer some brief apology for their continued use of the term. Charles Rosen, for instance, states that '"cyclical form" is an ambiguous as well as a vague term'"


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Notwithstanding the magnitude of the work and the diversity of its musical material, based on the Mass are relatively few thematic elements, which are indicated in the first part of the work - Requiem aeternam. Consider the intonations which make up the topic. It consists of two elements: The first is a tonic to the funeral service, the theme of "breath." 
<Once again on Mozart's Requiem (Issues of Intonation-and-Style Analysis) by Andrey Yu. Sapsuev>

"the Mozart Requiem is full of quotations and references. The main "Requiem" theme, the DNA of which permeates the entire work, is, in fact, a quote. This melody (d-c#-d-e-f) is from a Lutheran hymn, "When My Final Hour is At Hand." If you're trying to figure out how much truth there is to the stories of Mozart's reportedly saying that he was writing "my own Requiem," the fact that the main theme of the entire piece is attached to the words "My Final Hour" rather than his, hers, ours or theirs is worth knowing."
<Mozart Requiem- quotation and meaning by Kenneth Woods>

See how "d-c#-d-e-f" is inverted vertically, horizontally, or altered in different registers

Introitus / Kyrie / Dies irae :
View attachment 130980


Tuba mirum / Rex tremendae / Recordare :
View attachment 130974


Confutatis / Lacrimosa / Amen :
View attachment 130975


Domine jesu / Hostias:
View attachment 130981


Sanctus / Benedictus / Agnus dei :
View attachment 130977


Also take a look at:
"The motif of "breath" throughout the development of the melody is transformed, acquiring various emotional shades. In some cases, it serves as an expression of grief, weeping pleas of desperation and fear, determination and greatness"
<Once again on Mozart's Requiem (Issues of Intonation-and-Style Analysis) by Andrey Yu. Sapsuev>

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

certain "cyclic" ideas in Mozart seem to be merely "conceptual", for example:






"The idea used in the first movement of an advancing momentum brought to a sudden
stop is again explored." 
(Elizabeth Dalton, 2016)
*[ 0:20 ]
[ 7:50 ]
[ 27:00 ]
[ 30:00 ]*








(It's the only quintet where Mozart actually writes out whole rests for all voices.)

part-writing and suspensions involving slurred half-notes and chromatic eighth-note figures:
*[ 4:15 ]
[ 28:06 ]*









ascending chromatic figures accompanied by descending figures composed of longer note values:
*[ 4:44 ]
[ 26:20 ]*









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





Charles Hazlewood: "Now the entry of the piano here. Again, new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as the first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before." 





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






I. Allegro has "Rhythm 1" as its principal rhythmic motif: [ dotted 1/4 note - 1/8 note - 1/8 note - 1/8 note ]
View attachment 131092


II. Menuetto has "Rhythm 2" as its principal rhythmic motif: [ 1/2 note - 1/4 note - 1/4 note - 1/4 note ]
View attachment 131079


IV. Allegro ma non troppo has both.
View attachment 131080


+ certain motivic similarities in these passages:

II. Menuetto
View attachment 131131


IV. Allegro ma non troppo
View attachment 131132


----------



## consuono

> I often find Ethereality's posts a bit too vague to understand fully because he talks in vague expressions such as "building foundational complexity from the ground up", without giving examples. Nevertheless, I'm reminded of the time me and other forum members talked about "cyclic technique", I think it was Woodduck, EdwardBast (or someone else, I don't remember exactly) who said that the Art of the Fugue is a mere collection of fugues, so it doesn't count as a type of cyclic form. Variations are supposed to build on one theme, so they don't count as a type of cyclic form either.


Well then if you want to call AofF "a mere collection of fugues" there's nothing stopping anyone from calling any of your examples "a mere smattering of repeated notes and phrases". Yes, variations are on a theme. Sonata form is also built on themes and motifs, some of them repeated and milked and hammered (no pun) unnecessarily in my opinion. If you want to call AofF "cyclic" or deny vehemently that it's "cyclic" is really irrelevant. What's so great about "cyclic"? I don't think it really appears until Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner and Franck.


> Charles Hazlewood: "Now the entry of the piano here. Again, new material, but interestingly, it's exactly the same chord structure as the first entry in the first movement. A wonderful sense of Mozart referring back to what we remember, having heard before."


I would bet that that isn't really unique or original with Mozart.


> "the Mozart Requiem is full of quotations and references. The main "Requiem" theme, the DNA of which permeates the entire work, is, in fact, a quote. This melody (d-c#-d-e-f) is from a Lutheran hymn, "When My Final Hour is At Hand." ...


 With a big dollop of Handel, maybe:


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> I often find Ethereality's posts a bit too vague to understand fully because he talks in vague expressions such as "building foundational complexity from the ground up", without giving examples.


Tdc always takes things personally, which is always a laugh. In any case, all the great composers are so unique that one doesn't always need to give individual examples. Take _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_. If you don't inherently hear the complex foundations of structure growing firmer and firmer from the first measure, then it seems your ears could just be faulty on this particular topic: _structure_ is something which cements work in place, it gives a supporting foundation to develop but in ultimately connecting within itself, the prime goal. I think tdc needs a dictionary or needs to come back to Earth a bit. I haven't much clue what structure he's referring to with his quotes (and won't ask.)


----------



## consuono

> I would cite the most popular examples to prove my point if it's about composer vs composer, take Eine Kliene Nachtmusik. If you don't inherently hear the complex foundations of structure growing firmer and firmer from the first measure, then it seems your ears could just be faulty on this particular topic.


Yeah, but I could say the same thing about the Goldbergs bass line, or the theme from the AofF, or the subject of just about any Bach fugue for that matter. In the first measure of the Mozart serenade I hear a G major chord.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> If you want to call AofF "cyclic" or deny vehemently that it's "cyclic" is really irrelevant. What's so great about "cyclic"? I don't think it really appears until Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner and Franck.


Don't get me wrong, I think that Bach has a superb sense of form. I was just saying the discussion seemed to be heading towards the topic of "cyclic technique", and there were a few things I wanted to add to it.



consuono said:


> I would bet that that isn't really unique or original with Mozart.
> With a big dollop of Handel, maybe:


*[ 0:00 ]
[ 20:03 ]*





I don't think it's something Mozart invented, but something that gradually came into practice over the course of the common practice.
Beethoven also has cyclic elements, most notably in the 9th symphony and the Op.101 sonata. But with the 5th symphony though, the four note motif seems a bit too much like a "cliche" to me (Not in the negative sense) in the context of Beethoven's oeuvre, I find it hard to see it as a more striking cyclic element than those of his predecessors. It is still cyclic, but at the same time, it seems a bit like he's doing it just because he's familiar with it. "d-c#-d-e-f" is also a cliche in Mozart's catholic music as well, (I hear it also in J.E. Eberlin. Except in the requiem, Mozart hits you in the face with it right off the bat, in the "introitus" and the "amen", like Beethoven's 5th symphony) but I think it is no more cliche in the context of Mozart's catholic music than Beethoven's four-note motif is in Beethoven's oeuvre. That's just how I see it.
Btw, I hear bits of "d-c#-d-e-f" in the Art of the Fugue as well, one of the reasons why I once told norman bates that the Art of the Fugue is aesthetically close to other 18th century stuff, to disagree with his opinion that it is "ugly" or not "listener-friendly" (or something to the effect).


----------



## Ethereality

Ethereality said:


> _structure_ is something which cements work in place, it gives a supporting foundation to develop but in ultimately connecting within itself, the prime goal. I think tdc needs a dictionary or needs to come back to Earth a bit. I haven't much clue what structure he's referring to with his quotes (and won't ask.)





consuono said:


> Yeah, but I could say the same thing about the Goldbergs bass line, or the theme from the AofF, or the subject of just about any Bach fugue for that matter. In the first measure of the Mozart serenade I hear a G major chord.


Mozart is constantly expanding these forms in a way that unfolds onto themselves though. Bach in your examples seems to be, again, providing smaller structures and bases for the various territories he wants to mark along the path ie. again, he's balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint, a practical application which is very important, but he doesn't (most certainly) reciprocate from the opposite direction of the whole. He's not really establishing 'structure' so much, I'm not sure either of you are grasping the term.

Also, G Major Chord, I'm hearing an arpeggio within 2 measures. Perhaps I gave the wrong time signature.

In the case you will hear what I'm talking about, I do think Bach's music has excellent structure. It's just not Tier 1 in the amount of perfection and complexity put into it. Bach's 'sheer complexity' seems to stem out of harmonic logic, not structural attention. This is why, by lack of structural thinking, it can support more notes and variations. It's not absolutely rooted in its structure and the forms which arise from it like Mozart or Beethoven are.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> To misunderstand that is a common error of the unschooled.





Ethereality said:


> If you don't inherently hear the complex foundations of structure growing firmer and firmer from the first measure, then it seems your ears could just be faulty on this particular topic:





tdc said:


> To be honest I've started to ignore Ethereality's posts, because they often contain such backward arguments, that I suspect this poster writes them only with the intention of getting attention. But occasionally there is something so blatantly and demonstrably false it should be called out.


I too sometimes think Ethereality just says pointlessly provocative things just to get a rise out of other people. His recent assertions "Debussy is better than Brahms" in an irrelevant thread is, I think, one of them. https://www.talkclassical.com/67490-definitive-music-biographies-5.html#post1907365


----------



## Ethereality

I made some solid points in that thread. I think I settled my last post by saying Debussy was much more _original_ and _creative_ than Brahms, but the point of my presence was to defend the assertion that Debussy is simply the more popular composer nowadays, and trending much more than Brahms. I don't see what is provocative about that aside from individuals' ignorance on this information. Not a very provocative discussion in the least.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Mozart is constantly expanding these forms in a way that unfolds onto themselves though. Bach in your examples seems to be, again, providing smaller structures and bases for the various territories he wants to mark along the path ie. again, he's balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint, a practical application which is very important, but he doesn't (most certainly) reciprocate from the opposite direction of the whole. He's not really establishing 'structure' so much, I'm not sure either of you are grasping the term.


I'm not sure *you* are, because honestly what you're doing is transferring Bachian characteristics to Mozart. Bach is, even more so than Mozart, about structure and order. Maybe you just don't have the ear for it. 



> Also, G Major Chord, I'm hearing an arpeggio within 2 measures. Perhaps I gave the wrong time signature.


Yes, an arpeggio is indeed a broken chord.



> In the case you will hear what I'm talking about, I do think Bach's music has excellent structure. It's just not Tier 1 in the amount of perfection and complexity put into it. Bach's 'sheer complexity' seems to stem out of harmonic logic, not structural attention. ...


I'm sorry, but that's laughable. Whether or not Bach is "Tier 1" is your subjective opinion of course, but you're acting as if you're judging it by an objective standard which you haven't demonstrated.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Bach is, even more so than Mozart, about structure and order. Maybe you just don't have the ear for it.


Perhaps I don't and you have the ears.



consuono said:


> Yes, an arpeggio is indeed a broken chord.


Yes, but I simply mean if someone hears a chord, they're not discerning the phrase. There are certain rhythmic and directional emphases that lay the groundwork for this whole piece within that phrase.



consuono said:


> Whether or not Bach is "Tier 1" is your subjective opinion of course


I never gave my opinion on this matter. I specified Bach's skill and attention for form, where I'd personally rank it compared to Mozart. Most importantly, I specified where each of the Big 3's skills seem to me to predominantly lie.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> ...
> I never gave my opinion on this matter. I specified Bach's skill and attention for form, where I'd personally rank it compared to Mozart. Most importantly, I specified where each of the Big 3's skills seem to me to predominantly lie.


Yes you did, you said structure in Bach is not "Tier 1" due to the lack of "perfection and complexity put into it". That's laughable on its face, if the comparison is with Mozart. The whole Classical attitude to me seems to trend toward simplification and clarity in textures and not so much "complexity"...more Handel than Bach. That attitude was more "modern" and "popular". That's why Handel at his death was famous throughout Europe while Bach died in relative obscurity.
Earlier you wrote:


> Bach in your examples seems to be, again, providing smaller structures and bases for the various territories he wants to mark along the path ie. again, he's balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint, a practical application which is very important, but he doesn't (most certainly) reciprocate from the opposite direction of the whole. He's not really establishing 'structure' so much, I'm not sure either of you are grasping the term.


If I'm deciphering that correctly, what you're saying is that when it came to the Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue and B Minor Mass Bach wasn't looking at the "big picture" of the work as a whole. You think Bach in creating those didn't follow an ordered, highly structured plan?

Seriously?? Are you familiar with Bach's Clavier-Übung III (the "Organ Mass")?

Otherwise, what you're ultimately saying is "Bach lacked Mozart's formal perfection because Bach wasn't Mozart and I like Mozart's music more." Now that's fine, but it's a totally subjective judgement, not one based on comparative structural analysis (of which you don't seem to be very aware when it comes to Bach).


----------



## Ethereality

I have to iterate that I don't see your point on smaller levels of organization vs the larger and better-established forms of Classicism. I fully agree that Handel (as well as Monteverdi) was a pivotal figure for helping to develop particular overarching forms that Classical uses, but upon studying the music of Mozart and Beethoven, it only proves that these formulas simply work as a catalyst, an elongating ground structure to exponentialize and interrelate complexities even more within--the categorical matrices of interrelation. You're comparing a massive _tree_ of 100 years of pure form development, to some weaving, outstretching bushes albeit beautiful designed. I just want to note, I never said Bach doesn't have a great sense of structure in his own approach, but all I hear is 'Bach is better at everything,' and with that, you aren't making distinct points about the knowledge we have.

I'm very well aware that you like Bach, and oft stated have I that Bach equals in skill elsewhere, therefore your implication that I have a 'favorite' to defend in Mozart, comes from nowhere but your imagination. Perhaps we will have to just disagree.



consuono said:


> If I'm deciphering that correctly, what you're saying is that when it came to the Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue and B Minor Mass Bach wasn't looking at the "big picture" of the work as a whole. You think Bach in creating those didn't follow an ordered, highly structured plan?
> 
> Seriously?? Are you familiar with Bach's Clavier-Übung III (the "Organ Mass")?


In a sense, that's part of what I'm saying. I worded it more specifically using matrices to refer to the smaller building blocks Mozart creatively uses to expand and resolve, and then do so using larger forms. But holistic structure and timed balance alone wasn't exactly a known attitude of Bach's or in the majority of his works. He was much more into variation of form and harmony, not putting together the soundest structures, while he's at times quite good at it. It is difficult to write an in depth analysis on this though, as you are aware of. Where do you want me to begin my exposition?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> *Mozart is constantly expanding these forms in a way that unfolds onto themselves *though. *Bach* in your examples seems to be, again, providing smaller structures and bases for the various territories he wants to mark along the path ie. again, he's *balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint*, a practical application which is very important, but *he doesn't (most certainly) reciprocate from the opposite direction of the whole. He's not really establishing 'structure'* so much, *I'm not sure either of you are grasping the term.*


People will not always "grasp terms" if terms are not tied to specific instances. Words are words, not "things-in-themselves." The words, "expanding these forms in a way that unfolds onto themselves" appear to mean something to you, but they may be unhelpful to others, even others who perceive and understand Mozart's formal procedures. Similarly, your description of Bach as "balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint" affords a misleading idea of his thinking, seeming to imply that he was merely spinning out simultaneous melody lines with no plan for their future. See below...



> In the case you will hear what I'm talking about, I do think Bach's music has excellent structure. *It's just not Tier 1 in the amount of perfection and complexity put into it.* *Bach's 'sheer complexity' seems to stem out of harmonic logic, not structural attention.* This is why, by lack of structural thinking, it can support more notes and variations. *It's not absolutely rooted in its structure and the forms which arise from it like Mozart or Beethoven are.*


I'm trying to decide whether you are actually saying something real, something specific, and therefore something useful, in these statements. Talking of a "lack of structural attention" in Bach is not auspicious. It's my belief that to create a satisfying whole employing a "fortspinnung" melodic style, complex counterpoint, and rich, often chromatic harmony, requires a quite sophisticated sense of form, but it isn't likely to be the kind of form that can be "standardized" the way sonata-allegro form came to be. A perfectly satisfying sonata movement can easily be constructed based on an assumed structural template, with contrasts of material and key relationships settled in advance of the invention of specific material. There is no such paradigmatic template for fugues and other polyphonic works; such devices as imitation, inversion, and stretto don't generate macrostructure, which will be for the composer to imagine in each new musical essay. (A fugue is not a "form" at all, but a procedure, and so it can be misleading to speak of a fugal work as "a fugue"; it might be more accurate to call it "a fuguing.")

If "structural attention" implies starting out a work by basing it on an established macrostructure, then no, a Bach fugue may not exemplify that idea of "structural attention." But what matters is not how and when powerful structures are generated, but the fact that they exist in the finished work. How a composer gets there is unimportant.

A piece such as Bach's "Double Concerto," in its thematic developments, its textural contrasts, its tonal movement, and its overall pacing and proportions, is a brilliant exhibition of "structural attention" in which Bach is doing far more than "balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint," whatever you may mean by that.

(Wonderful performance here, btw)


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> I have to iterate that I don't see your point on smaller levels of organization vs the larger and better-established forms of Classicism. I fully agree that Handel (as well as Monteverdi) was a pivotal figure for helping to develop particular overarching forms that Classical uses, but upon studying the music of Mozart and Beethoven, it only proves that these formulas simply work as a catalyst, an elongating ground structure to exponentialize and interrelate complexities even more within--the categorical matrices of interrelation.


Eh? That was starting to look like _Finnegans Wake_.


> You're comparing a massive _tree_ of 100 years of pure form development, to some weaving, outstretching bushes albeit beautiful designed. I just want to note, I never said Bach doesn't have a great sense of structure in his own approach, but all I hear is 'Bach is better at everything,' and with that, you aren't making distinct points about the knowledge we have.


I didn't say "Bach is better at everything". My opinion is that Bach's entire body of work is "greater", i.e. shows more craftsmanship, is more profoundly moving and ultimately more absolutely mind-boggling than that of any other composer we know.

To use your analogy, Bach would be the tree, showing not 100 years of development but rather about 300 at least. Mozart would be among the beautiful branches. After all Mozart was a close student of C.P.E. and J.C. Bach who in turn learned much in terms of expressiveness and technique from their father.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> It's my belief that to create a satisfying whole employing a "fortspinnung" melodic style, complex counterpoint, and rich, often chromatic harmony, requires a quite sophisticated sense of form,* but it isn't likely to be the kind of form that can be "standardized" the way sonata-allegro form came to be*.


I think why that is is because the form in its smaller and larger developments isn't really 'there' as much and with as much attention and dedication, for interplay, accumulation and exposition, to be clearly understood. It's a bit more functional and intuitive, not as demanding and intricate. I think Bach has done a marvelous job with it in St. Matthew Passion. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote, excellent post.

This is probably a better example now that I think of it. Five minutes in and Mozart is already breaking the fourth wall, so to speak. It's hard to really quantify:


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> If "structural attention" implies starting out a work by basing it on an established macrostructure, then no, a Bach fugue may not exemplify that idea of "structural attention." But what matters is not how and when powerful structures are generated, but the fact that they exist in the finished work. How a composer gets there is unimportant.


No, I think it absolutely does imply "structural attention" as rigorous (and often as ignored or altered by the composer) as that displayed in sonata form. I don't quite understand the thought that sonata form with a minuet and rondo and another sonata form movement tacked on represents the acme of "complex structures". Which are more interconnected and coherent: the different movements of a Classical-era symphony, or each of the Goldberg Variations or the sections of a Bach cantata?


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> No, I think it absolutely does imply "structural attention" as rigorous (and often as ignored or altered by the composer) as that displayed in sonata form. I don't quite understand the thought that sonata form with a minuet and rondo and another sonata form movement tacked on represents the acme of "complex structures".


It doesn't, (though I'm seeing this from a non-technical point of view). No single musical form can 'represent the acme of "complex structures".' You might claim that there are several examples by this or that composer which represent the acme of that particular form, but it must surely always be possible for someone to take a new form and construct 'complexity' out of it.

But I didn't think that was what Woodduck was saying anyway. I took it he was just saying that you can create complexity without having a plan to adhere to a particular (macro) form.


----------



## janxharris

Classical era symphonies aren't known for any interconnectedness of their different movements.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Classical era symphonies aren't known for any interconnectedness of their different movements.




















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

descending arpeggiated diminished sevenths (there are other instances in Mozart where this sort of expression shows up, such as in the "sturm und drang" ballet music from Thamos, king of Egypt K.345, but they don't contain the exact same notes.):

*I. Allegro con brio (1:22 , 6:14)*
View attachment 138461

*IV. Allegro (21:58)*
View attachment 138454


---------

*1. Allegro (0:01)
2. Tema con variazioni (6:38)
1. Allegro (2:12)
6. Rondo (32:07)*
View attachment 137060


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> I'm not sure *you* are, because honestly what you're doing is transferring Bachian characteristics to Mozart. *Bach is, even more so than Mozart, about structure and order.* Maybe you just don't have the ear for it.
> 
> Yes, an arpeggio is indeed a broken chord.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's laughable. Whether or not Bach is "Tier 1" is your subjective opinion of course, but you're acting as if you're judging it by an objective standard which you haven't demonstrated.


I can't agree Bach is more about structure and order than Mozart. They were equally important to both composers. They just concentrated on different forms. I'm surprised Hammeredklavier didn't jump all over it. He's been less aggressive lately. I'm disappointed in him.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I admire Bach for organizing that way formally, but I don't think it has anything to do with how one listens and perceives the music. I don't think those things can be picked out and appreciated by ear over such a long term. Also is there any evidence that Bach used matrices in his music?


Well, I think we perceive things beyond what we are consciously aware of, and also as far as canons that can be played forward and in retrograde and then superimposed on each other I think those are structural elements that can be perceived by listening to the music in that way as it is shown in the video I linked to.

I was responding to the 'harmony alone' aspect of his post, whether or not Bach used matrices when composing, I don't know. Did Mozart? Sounds like a word Ethereality put in his post to make it appear like his point has more meaning than it does.


----------



## tdc

In simple terms Bach's use of structure generally demonstrates more harmonic complexity in the vertical sense, classical structures are simplified in terms of vertical harmony and expanded (or made more complex) in the horizontal sense. Classical structures lose complexity in one area and gain in another. This doesn't represent an improvement or tier 1 and tier 2 structures of form, it represents different approaches to structure.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> ------------
> 
> descending arpeggiated diminished sevenths (there are other instances in Mozart where this sort of expression shows up, such as in the "sturm und drang" ballet music from Thamos, king of Egypt K.345, but they don't contain the exact same notes.):


Sorry, hammeredklavier, but those connections are so slight that I don't think they can really be called "cyclical".


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> I think why that is is because the form in its smaller and larger developments isn't really 'there' as much and with as much attention and dedication, for interplay, accumulation and exposition, to be clearly understood. *It's a bit more functional and intuitive, not as demanding and intricate.* I think Bach has done a marvelous job with it in St. Matthew Passion. I pretty much agree with everything you wrote, excellent post.


I don't think sonata form is _inherently_ demanding or intricate. The general pattern of Exposition (usually with contrasting themes in contrasting keys) - Development - Recapitulation (usually bringing both themes into the home key) is simple, and it's really rather easy to make a satisfactory work of that kind - not necessarily inspired, as Mozart and Beethoven are inspired, but satisfactory and even quite pleasing. 18th-century composers turned out truckloads of them. By contrast, making a polyphonic work that isn't incoherent, repetitious, clunky or simply dull is much more difficult. If the form "isn't really there," the demands on the composer's imagination are greater. The awe with which I regard Wagner is based to a large extent on my perception of the sort of creative power that generates powerful structures organically without obvious models. Brahms saw this power in Wagner but kept his awe close to the vest; upon hearing the _Siegfried Idyll _his amusing comment was "Yes, yes, but one _can't_ have music like that _all_ the time!" I see that sort of creative power in Bach again and again (as a violinist friend commented, Bach "created his own forms"). Of course Mozart and Beethoven possessed it too, but here I'm talking about basic concepts of structure and what a composer is doing in generating successful works out of them. I think Classical formal concepts, based on successive melodic units more than on simultaneous melodic lines, as well as on clearly marked key changes, are intrinsically easier to turn into a satisfying temporal event than the complex and fluctuating vertical textures of polyphonic music. I base this conclusion partly on personal experience as a composer (strictly speaking, an improvisor at the keyboard).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I don't think sonata form is _inherently_ demanding or intricate. The general pattern of Exposition (usually with contrasting themes in contrasting keys) - Development - Recapitulation (usually bringing both themes into the home key) is simple, and it's really rather easy to make a satisfactory work of that kind - not necessarily inspired, as Mozart and Beethoven are inspired, but satisfactory and even quite pleasing. 18th-century composers turned out truckloads of them. By contrast, making a polyphonic work that isn't incoherent, repetitious, clunky or simply dull is much more difficult.
> I see that sort of creative power in Bach again and again (as a violinist friend commented, Bach "created his own forms"). Of course Mozart and Beethoven possessed it too, but here I'm talking about basic concepts of structure and what a composer is doing in generating successful works out of them. I think Classical formal concepts, based on successive melodic units more than than simultaneous melodic lines, as well as on clearly marked key changes, are intrinsically easier to turn into a satisfying temporal event than the complex and fluctuating vertical textures of polyphonic music.


I agree that Bach "stands out" from the rest of the early 18th century composers, but "producing truckloads of contrapuntal works" isn't quite the reason I admire him for. He's more than just a typical 18th-century "counterpoint geek". Take Mozart's own father, for example, or his colleagues such as Eberlin, Pasterwitz, Adlgasser, or other church composers of his time, like Hasse, Xaver Richter: they also produced truckloads of contrapuntal pieces. This fugue he wrote ( 



 ) is quite enjoyable to listen to, and I read that he wrote larger, more serious contrapuntal works, ( http://conquest.imslp.info/files/im...MLP169311-Litaniæ_de_Venerabili_C.pdf#page=42 ) but only a small fraction of them have been recorded nowadays.



> https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1335462994
> "Of the manuscript compositions by Herr Mozart which have become known, numerous contrapuntal and other church pieces are especially noteworthy."


The same way Bach produced more interesting stuff than his contemporaries, - Mozart and Beethoven also produced more interesting stuff than their own contemporaries like Dittersdorf or Danzi.
And I also want to point out Bach, aside from the complex fugues he wrote, he also wrote a huge number of "homophonic" keyboard preludes, fantasies, and chorales, arias, recitatitives in his cantatas, and "monophonic" pieces like the cello suites. 
Whereas the Classicists also frequently incorporated contrapuntal writing in their classical forms.

"... He (Chopin) said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint..."
(The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57)

I guess if Mozart had a job like Pasterwitz and lived longer, he would have produced a truckload of this stuff: 





I fail to see how these adhere to different compositional languages:


















They all adhere to the 18th century practice of part-writing. I do think Bach's complexity is astounding, but I just want to point out the flaw in the stereotypical thinking that "Bach wrote polyphony, whereas the classicists wrote homophony all the time". We know things weren't like that, don't we?

The "Galant" Style in J. S. Bach's "Musical Offering:" Widening the Dimensions
Gregory Butler
"What has been written about galant features in Bach's late works in general and the Musical Offering in particular has tended to focus on surface details. As a result galant style is said to be characterized by simplified melody clearly articulated into short, balanced phrases, and employing such figures as triplets, syncopations, and appoggiatura "sigh" motives, dominating a thinned-out, polarized texture in which the bass part abandons any thematic engagement with the upper part for a sort of bland, generic diet of repeated notes and other similar patterns. The view that in the case of the Musical offering these references to the galant style were intended by Bach both to demonstrate his engagement with progressive tendencies and to appeal to certain aesthetic sensibilities at the Potsdam court of the collection's dedicatee is widely accepted by Bach scholars. ..."


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Sorry, hammeredklavier, but those connections are so slight that I don't think they can really be called "cyclical".


I think they're about as "cyclic" as Beethoven's 5th is. At least in the 40th symphony Mozart uses the exact same set of notes (without even transposing them) in all 4 movements. I'm not sure if Beethoven does, in his 5th symphony. 
But again, I'm not trying to argue Mozart "invented" any of these.

*K.243:*
"It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
_"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
[10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
as if "darkness" wasn't yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
[13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
[21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domini morientum"_.
[24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, a large double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
*[34:25]: "miserere nobis" (the final movement) quotes "kyrie eleison" (the first movement) and develops on the theme."*

*K.220:* 









*K.317:*


----------



## Barbebleu

jdec said:


> The most stupid comment I have heard or read this year.


You should look at the Zenph reperformance thread about Gould if you're looking for some stupid comments!


----------



## Judith

Mozart works are never boring. His compositions are the style of the time he was around like the styles of many other composers. Find variety in much of his music


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> No, I think it absolutely does imply "structural attention" as rigorous (and often as ignored or altered by the composer) as that displayed in sonata form. I don't quite understand the thought that sonata form with a minuet and rondo and another sonata form movement tacked on represents the acme of "complex structures". Which are more interconnected and coherent: the different movements of a Classical-era symphony, or each of the Goldberg Variations or the sections of a Bach cantata?


Goldberg variations are in 'variation form'. You do know that the classicists also wrote a ton of stand-alone variations, right? I'm not sure why you're comparing them with other forms.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Fantasie & sonata K.475 & K.457 (which Mozart published together as a single entity) is said to be the Classical successor to the Baroque fantasie (or prelude) & fugue.

{ Excerpts from [ Fantasie K.475 ] , [ sonata K.457 first movement ] , [ sonata K.457 second movement ] , [ sonata K.457 third movement ] are denoted [ *F* ] , [ *S1* ] , [ *S2* ] , [ *S3* ] respectively in the top-left corners. }
View attachment 134941

View attachment 134942

View attachment 134943


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
I think these "4-note motif" figures (in chords) in the "Più allegro" section of the Fantasie and the third movement of the sonata (right before reaching their final episodes) exhibit certain gestural similarities. I personally like the way they're used in the third movement of the sonata better; I find it to be more "Classically chaotic".

*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
Another interesting commonality I find in the fantasie and the outer movements of the sonata is the "sigh-like expression", that is, when each of these movements is at the climatic midpoint of drama, (ex. around the end of the development section), there is a diminished seventh chord collapsing down to a dominant 6/5 chord. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134944

View attachment 134945


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
The last measures of both the fantasie and the sonata share the final statement "F♯-G-A♭-F-G-C". The article <W.A. Mozart's Fantasy in C minor, K. 475, And the Generalization of the Lydian Principle Through Motivic Thorough-Composition> discusses the significance of the interval C-F♯ in the fantasie.
The passages highlighted in pink also seem very similar in gesture, probably because their figures being somewhat similar, and also due to the context they're placed in, in both cases.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134956

View attachment 134957

View attachment 134958


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]*
The passages highlighted in yellow lead to the "second-thematic sections" in the expositions of the fantasie and the sonata's 1st movement, respectively (note the chromatic mediant modulation in the fantasie, Bm->D). I think these also share certain gestural similarities.

*[ K.475: Adagio ]
[ K.475: Andantino ] *
The figure highlighted in light green (in the topmost score), initially introduced in the exposition of the Fantasie (or the "Adagio" section or "1st movement"), later in the piece, becomes basis for the thematic working of the "Andantino" section (or the "3rd movement") of the Fantasie. The article <W. A. Mozart's Phantasie in C minor, K. 475: The Pillars of Musical Structure and Emotional Response> discusses how the Fantasie is conceptually "4 movements" contained in "one-movement sonata cycle", and may have been a source of inspiration for Liszt. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134959

View attachment 134960


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 II. Adagio ]*
The D major "second theme" of the fantasie and the theme of the sonata's 2nd movement, which are highlighted in violet; they may not be exactly the same thematic material, but in terms of rhythm, they're more similar than any other Mozart piano sonata slow movements. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134951

View attachment 134952


*[ Fantasie K.475 ]
[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]*
These are totally different thematic material, but to me, they still seem to exhibit resemblance in rhythmic proportion. Unlike that of the fantasie, the passage of the sonata is composed of descending chromatic fourths (like the G minor symphony K.550, where "G-F♯-F-E-D♯-D" shows up in all its movements { I / II (2nd violin, Bar 6) / III (bassoon, Bar 36) / IV } ), but the gesture, and the way it's used in the context of the movement strike me as having an indirect, non-thematic relationship with the similarly-rhythmed passage in the Fantasie. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

View attachment 134953

View attachment 134954


*[ K.457 I. Molto allegro ]
[ K.457 III. Allegro assai ]*
This sort of gradually rising "agitated" chromatic figures accompanied by left-hand bass figures don't show up very often in Mozart's other keyboard works (At least not in this way. I can think of Fantasie K.397, but in this work, the right hand is accompanied by chords, rather than alberti bass figures) So I think there is a certain mood that Mozart wants to convey in the outer movements of K.457 that's unique from his other keyboard works.


----------



## larold

_All he has is ability to write what we call nowadays "jingle music" and "cell phone rings"_

Anyone that thinks this doesn't know much Mozart -- who wrote some of the most profound music in history. Here's a bit of it for you.






If you can't get it the commendatore is the dead father of a girl that committed suicide because of the don. He came back to earth to help the don be accountable. The don ends up in Hell.

Or try this, much less complex but equally powerful and resolute






Or you can enjoy and try to figure out the queen of the night and her magnificent aria






live and learn pal.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> I don't think sonata form is _inherently_ demanding or intricate... here I'm talking about basic concepts of structure and what a composer is doing in generating successful works out of them. I think Classical formal concepts, based on successive melodic units more than than simultaneous melodic lines, as well as on clearly marked key changes, are intrinsically easier to turn into a satisfying temporal event than the complex and fluctuating vertical textures of polyphonic music. I base this conclusion partly on personal experience as a composer (strictly speaking, an improvisor at the keyboard).


I generally disagree with your conclusions for favoring Bach's phantom structures, while it's an appealing notion at first, I feel the majority of his structure to be fairly normative and small-scale. It's what he does within normative structure, contrapuntally speaking (harmonies and rhythms) imo that makes me so reverent towards him. It's certainly true it's easier to work within _Classical form_, but I don't think it makes it less demanding. It's much more demanding for its widely evolved and matured potential for thematic interrelation, and moreso do I not think Mozart should even credit it much with the amount of ingenious integrity he brings himself in the construction of cohesive epochs and sublimely perfectionistic concert pieces. Aside from any harmonic or thematic blunders or cliches he may reproduce, his creative skills in working with homogeneity and _structure_ in all sizes from the motif and its interactions, to the whole of progression, remain unsurpassable. Get to Mozart's more advanced later works, and you start to hear more profound elements of Bach (or creativity) in harmony. These are all just my opinions. You're free to provoke or challenge them, in fact I appreciate your clarity and suggestions greatly.



tdc said:


> In simple terms Bach's use of structure generally demonstrates more harmonic complexity in the vertical sense, classical structures are simplified in terms of vertical harmony and expanded (or made more complex) in the horizontal sense. Classical structures lose complexity in one area and gain in another.


I'm not sure what Bach vs normal Classical music has to do it overall. This thread is about Mozart. But regarding vertical and horizontal, you're talking about harmony vs piece structure. Bach has more harmonic complexity than Mozart, even though it's not so black and white always, just as Bach seems quite capable of creativity in developmental homogeneity and piece structure.

I still don't even understand that quote of yours from earlier or how Bach builds a cohesive structure with it. That quote only used the verb "_v._ structures" which I feel is an evasion of sorts. Though I might evade the mathematics gone into Bach's work myself, or *insert a nobody*'s work, if I could also quote someone, consuono, "Ethereality, you might not have the ears to understand."


----------



## Phil loves classical

larold said:


> _All he has is ability to write what we call nowadays "jingle music" and "cell phone rings"_
> 
> Anyone that thinks this doesn't know much Mozart -- who wrote some of the most profound music in history. Here's a bit of it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't get it the commendatore is the dead father of a girl that committed suicide because of the don. He came back to earth to help the don be accountable. The don ends up in Hell.
> 
> Or try this, much less complex but equally powerful and resolute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you can enjoy and try to figure out the queen of the night and her magnificent aria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> live and learn pal.


I believe NOBODY ever added chromaticism while maintaining MAXIMUM tonality (I just had to capitalize that) to that kind of dramatic effect as that scene in Don Giovanni. Not Bach, Wagner. Not even Beethoven's 9th, which I feel is the closest.


----------



## erudite

larold said:


> _
> 
> If you can't get it *the commendatore is the dead father of a girl that committed suicide because of the don*. He came back to earth to help the don be accountable. The don ends up in Hell.
> _


_

I don't think Donna Anna committed suicide… did she? Not in any production I've ever heard or seen._


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Goldberg variations are in 'variation form'. You do know that the classicists also wrote a ton of stand-alone variations, right? I'm not sure why you're comparing them with other forms.


Because we were told Bach didn't do the "large complex structure" as well as Mozart. Mozart never did anything as systematic and "complex".


----------



## DavidA

erudite said:


> I don't think Donna Anna committed suicide… did she? Not in any production I've ever heard or seen.


Nope! She says at the end she will marry Ottavio after she has had time to mourn her father


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe NOBODY ever added chromaticism while maintaining MAXIMUM tonality (I just had to capitalize that) to that kind of dramatic effect as that scene in Don Giovanni. Not Bach, Wagner. Not even Beethoven's 9th, which I feel is the closest.


For one thing I don't know what "MAXIMUM tonality" might be and how Mozart's MAXIMUM tonality is better than Bach's, Beethoven's or Wagner's.


----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> Eh? That was starting to look like _Finnegans Wake_.
> 
> I didn't say "Bach is better at everything". My opinion is that Bach's entire body of work is "greater", i.e. shows more craftsmanship, is more profoundly moving and ultimately more absolutely mind-boggling than that of any other composer we know.
> 
> To use your analogy, Bach would be the tree, showing not 100 years of development but rather about 300 at least. Mozart would be among the beautiful branches. After all Mozart was a close student of C.P.E. and J.C. Bach who in turn learned much in terms of expressiveness and technique from their father.


I always find posts like this amusing. Then Bach of course was a branch as others did what he did before him. The problem is that such analogies don't work unless to reinforce your own prejudices.


----------



## consuono

DavidA said:


> I always find posts like this amusing. _Then Bach of course was a branch as others did what he did before him_. The problem is that such analogies don't work unless to reinforce your own prejudices.


I always find responses like this amusing. Of course Bach was likewise such a "branch", but actually in my view the culmination of a long period of European musical development. It all came together. But it was Ethereality's analogy, not mine. It probably didn't amuse you quite as much when he stated it, eh old pal?

What's amusing about such threads is you always have a bunch of verbiage saying essentially "I like Mozart better and can't really say why".


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> For one thing I don't know what "MAXIMUM tonality" might be and how Mozart's MAXIMUM tonality is better than Bach's, Beethoven's or Wagner's.


Chromaticism usually weakens tonality as in Wagner and I believe even Bach to a lesser degree. Bach's music is more contrapuntal than Mozart's in general, so even though it still works in tonal harmony, added chromaticism will weaken the tonal harmony substantially. It's just give and take. One is not better than another. In Mozart's case, the dramatic chromaticism did nothing to weaken the tonal harmony in that particular instance.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Chromaticism is usually weakens tonality as in Wagner and I believe even Bach to a lesser degree. Bach's music is more contrapuntal than Mozart's in general, so even though it still works in tonal harmony, added chromaticism will weaken the tonal harmony substantially. It's just give and take. One is not better than another. In Mozart's case, the dramatic chromaticism did nothing to weaken the tonal harmony.


No, you said it's MAXIMUM tonality and had to capitalize it. I'm just wondering how it's more MAXIMUM than Bach or Beethoven. Do you have any specific examples where chromaticism is kind of botched in Bach but Mozart wins out by maintaining MAXIMUM tonality?


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> No, you said it's MAXIMUM tonality and had to capitalize it. I'm just wondering how it's more MAXIMUM than Bach or Beethoven.


I didn't imply it is more maximum than Bach or Beethoven in general, I said with added chromaticism they used it is, in that particular instance of that scene in Don Giovanni.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> I didn't imply it is more maximum than Bach or Beethoven in general, I said with added chromaticism they used it is.


But well yeah you *did* imply that. So take us through that particular scene note for note and demonstrate the MAXIMUM tonality.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> But well yeah you *did* imply that.


Nope. There was a clear specific condition. "I believe NOBODY ever added chromaticism while maintaining MAXIMUM tonality (I just had to capitalize that) to that kind of dramatic effect as that scene in Don Giovanni."


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> I didn't imply it is more maximum than Bach or Beethoven in general, I said with added chromaticism they used it is, in that particular instance of that scene in Don Giovanni.


Could you explain exactly what you are saying PLC?


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Nope. There was a clear specific condition. "I believe NOBODY ever added chromaticism while maintaining MAXIMUM tonality (I just had to capitalize that) to that kind of dramatic effect as that scene in Don Giovanni."


OK, explain that further. What is MAXIMUM tonality?


> In Mozart's case, the dramatic chromaticism did nothing to weaken the tonal harmony in that particular instance.


Show some examples from Bach and Beethoven where tonal harmony is relatively weakened by using chromaticism.


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> Could you explain exactly what you are saying PLC?


Usually when you add chromaticism you weaken the tonality, like say Gesualdo or Prokofiev. It's distracting in a way, but offers some interest. I think Bach achieved a remarkable mix with both. I don't know if it can be proven conclusively at all, but to my ears the tonal harmony suffered slightly, even though it works out in the end. With that scene in Don Giovanni, the tonal harmony was strong throughout, and even though the chromaticism was used as accents and even more, the tonal harmony didn't suffer one bit to my ears. He was able to achieve a total dichotomy of both. Nobody has to agree with me.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Usually when you add chromaticism you weaken the tonality, like say Gesualdo or Prokofiev. It's distracting in a way, but offers some interest. I think Bach achieved a remarkable mix with both. I don't know if it can be proven conclusively at all, but to my ears the tonal harmony suffered slightly, even though it works out in the end. With that scene in Don Giovanni, the tonal harmony was strong throughout, and even though the chromaticism was used as accents and even more, the tonal harmony didn't suffer one bit to my ears. He was able to achieve a total dichotomy of both. Nobody has to agree with me.


The problem with that is that when you introduce chromaticism you've by definition weakened the sense of tonality, and no I don't think Mozart magically escaped that either.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> The problem with that is that when you introduce chromaticism you've by definition weakened the sense of tonality, and no I don't think Mozart magically escaped that either.


The way I feel Mozart did in that scene, was he reinforced one and the other at different times, almost like a dialogue, in a way that one didn't contradict the other. I'd be happy to hear other instances by any composer anyone brings up.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> The way I feel Mozart did in that scene, was he reinforced one and the other at different times, almost like a dialogue, in a way that one didn't contradict the other.


But using tonality in these measures and chromaticism in those isn't exactly using chromaticism while at the same time maintaining "maximum tonality". It's using a mix of tonality and chromaticism just as Bach and Beethoven did, and you can no doubt find loads of examples from those composers. What you're really saying is "Bach, Beethoven and Wagner never composed the final scene from Mozart's Don Giovanni", which is weak sauce.


> I'd be happy to hear other instances by any composer anyone brings up.


Just about any Bach fugue.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"What the new power of the mediant relationships attacked was the coherence of the tonal hierarchy, which in the eighteenth century gave opposing functions of the chords of the dominant and the subdominant. Movement to the dominant raised the tension of the music; an allusion to the subdominant decreased it. That is why, in a Bach fugue or a Mozart sonata, the music first goes to the dominant, and generally emphasizes subdominant harmony only in the latter half of the form. This distinction, wonderfully useful for dramatic expression throughout the eighteenth century, practically disappeared for the generation of composers born around 1810. A new chromaticism, largely arrived at through the use of mediant relations, blurs the clarity of the tonal system: one is no longer so certain which harmonies are most distant from the central tonic, a doubt which never arises with the music of Bach, Haydn, or Beethoven.
A sudden shift to the mediant or submediant was a dramatic effect in the late eighteenth century; it was generally reserved for the center of a piece, as when Mozart moves suddenly from the dominant to its mediant in the sextet from Don Giovanni at the moment when Donna Anna and Don Ottavio enter and prevent Leporello from escaping. Within Mozart's style this new harmony is electrifying, and is magnified by a pianissimo drum roll and a soft trumpet sonority."
(The Romantic Generation By Charles Rosen. Page 237)


----------



## SixFootScowl

Judith said:


> Mozart works are never boring. His compositions are the style of the time he was around like the styles of many other composers. Find variety in much of his music


Perhaps is is not a matter of boring so much as it is that someone is just not into that era of music and therefore finds all of it boring.


----------



## SanAntone

SixFootScowl said:


> Perhaps is is not a matter of boring so much as it is that someone is just not into that era of music and therefore finds all of it boring.


I went back and listened to some *Mozart* chamber music, the _Clarinet Quintet_. To my ears, the last thing that music is, is boring. But all of these opinions are subjective. I have no trouble accepting that for some listeners Mozart's is boring (and you're right, they might say the same for any music from the 18th century).

It is quite possible that the music they find completely engaging, I might feel the opposite.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^I totally agree. Music is subjective




For some, this is mere "predictability", but for others, it is "logic and clarity"


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> But using tonality in these measures and chromaticism in those isn't exactly using chromaticism while at the same time maintaining "maximum tonality". It's using a mix of tonality and chromaticism just as Bach and Beethoven did, and you can no doubt find loads of examples from those composers. What you're really saying is "Bach, Beethoven and Wagner never composed the final scene from Mozart's Don Giovanni", which is weak sauce.
> 
> Just about any Bach fugue.


Which fugue(s) in particular? Maybe there is one buried in there that matches the drama with chromaticism while maintaining strong tonality of that Mozart piece, maybe not. It's just as easy to say there has to be a piece in the Renaissance that matches it, and hope it sticks.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Which fugue(s) in particular? Maybe there is one buried in there that matches the drama with chromaticism while maintaining strong tonality of that Mozart piece, maybe not. It's just as easy to say there has to be a piece in the Renaissance that matches it, and hope it sticks.


Here's one among many. Mozart never matched this chromaticism:




But what you say is contradictory. Insofar as a piece indulges in chromaticism it's going to drift from MAXIMUM tonality.


----------



## Phil loves classical

That's a great piece. But I'm not so sure of your claim. I think chromaticism also needs to be taken into context. Bach has a lot of local chromaticism, I agree, more than Mozart, but in this case here, I think Wolfie is more extreme.






I agree that what I said about chromaticism and tonality is contradictory if it is referring to one given voice. But in Mozart's case in the Don Giovanni scene, he is reinforcing tonality and adding chromaticism simultaneously with different voices, sort of like using altered chords but more horizontal, while keeping voice lines separate, not quite so independently as Bach who uses more strict counterpoint. There is no way one can be superior to the other, but they achieve different things.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Mozart never matched this chromaticism


To me, Bach's chromaticism and Mozart's are like apples and oranges.

I too think Bach made expressively effective use of chromaticism (ex. crucifixus from the B minor mass), but has anyone in history commented on it specifically, or said that it was the objectively best way of writing chromaticism? Alfred Brendel in his essay on Mozart, he praised Mozart's keyboard works (such as K.533, K.511, K.540, K.594, K.608 ) by saying:

"I know of no other composer as fundamentally transformed while writing in minor keys, and *none except Gesualdo and Wagner*, who made such unforgettable use of chromaticism. (For Wagner himself, Mozart was 'the great Chromatiker'.)"
< Music, Sense and Nonsense: Collected Essays and Lectures , By Alfred Brendel , Page 14>

I know you'll say "I doubt if Brendel has heard the Wedge" - your favorite logic. =) Whenever a musician/composer has a view on Bach that doesn't satisfy you, you say "he hasn't heard [a certain work of Bach]".

"The slow introduction of Mozart's String Quartet in C Major, K 465 (the Dissonance Quartet; 1785), consists of a string of long-delayed suspensions so that the harmonic definition at any given instant is as blurred as anything in Wagner."
https://www.britannica.com/art/harmony-music/Chromaticism-in-harmony

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don't know why you keep using the Art of the fugue as 
an example,- but to me, it somewhat represents the old age of writing chromaticism. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing; I still find it expressively effective):
Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck - Fantasia Cromatica in D minor/dorian, SwWV 258.
Bach-Die Kunst der Fuge, Contrapunctus XIX-(Vocal arrangement) - this vocal performance of the final fugue is renaissance-like in feel.

Listen to the ending of Mozart K.608, which reminds us of "a cenar teco" with its sense of operatic drama: 




"Wagner, according to Cosima, considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker"."


----------



## Machiavel

I suspect most who finds Mozart boring find in general the classical period the same. I think they are mostly Romantics who like Big in your face gestures. WHen the music is angry the orchestra should sounds angry and the ceiling shatters in crumbles.

They lack or miss all the litle subtleties of the classcila music. I mean while Wagner is playing the same key for a longggg time Mozart has to be ingenious and have many changes of keys and new ideas always popping because you could not hold notes, chords as long as you can now with modern instruments. It impacted the way they had to compose.

I always find Mozart can on the surface sounds a litle too pleasent, easy going but I always hear much more underneath, full of hope, humanity.


JUst my 2 cents anyway ...


----------



## consuono

I knew I'd stir the Mozart Defense Marshal with that one.


> I know you'll say "Brendel hasn't heard the Wedge" - your favorite logic. =) Whenever a musician/composer has a view on Bach that doesn't satisfy you, you say "he hasn't heard [a certain work of Bach]".


That's because more often than not it seems as if they haven't. Provide examples and then it's:


> To me, Bach's chromaticism and Mozart's are like apples and oranges.


I don't care what Brendel says, or whatever musical figure. I can read music and I can hear. I don't think you care for Brendel's takes on Beethoven and Schubert anyway, but if he has something good to say about Mozart he's unassailable? 


> I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don't know why you keep using the Art of the fugue as
> an example,- but to me, it somewhat represents the old age of writing chromaticism.


I don't know why you keep posting that 2-piano fugue. I can provide others: the B minor fugue from WTC I, the A minor fugue from WTC II, the B flat minor from WTC II and I don't know how many cantata choruses as well as the Kyrie from the B Minor Mass, along with many MANY remarkable passages in the "Organ Mass" and the organ chorale preludes. What is "old age" chromaticism? It's the same thing, and Mozart in his last decade -- after, as you have pointed out many times, becoming acquainted with that same Art of Fugue -- began delving into it more and more and those are the works that are his greatest. That's why.

By the way, thanks for sharing that video of the vocal arrangement of the final fugue from AofF. That's stunning.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> That's a great piece. But I'm not so sure of your claim. I think chromaticism also needs to be taken into context. Bach has a lot of local chromaticism, I agree, more than Mozart, but in this case here, I think Wolfie is more extreme.


Nope. This is extreme:





So is this:


----------



## Ethereality

When anyone posts replies of "Mozart's better at this, and that," all I hear is better form, not to say I don't thoroughly enjoy Mozart's unique gifts, but their excellence is due to an aggregate of form. Bach frolics in a cornucopia of challenging, risky and unique harmony and rhythm, but Mozart ends up winning half of the time simply because he knows what building blocks to emphasize and build on. It's about symmetry and beauty. This is why Mozart is so well-received in the first place; it's not for doing all these 'crazy experiments', although I love them. It's the absolute gift of ear for how to balance and progress that should become obvious to any Mozart lover if it's not already. I elaborated on this on previous pages already, but I think people either get it or they don't (or agree or disagree.) Moreover, Mozart makes it look incredibly simple when it's actually written quite complexly. Oppositely, Bach's -piece forms sound complex because there are more notes and relationship potentials, but outside of smaller counterpoint and motive, his actual piece structure is quite repetitive and straightforward most of the time (with exceptions of course) but to prove this, look at every Bach piece and you'll find about a dozen of the same baroque substructures of climax and resolution he capitalizes on to phase and align his form, as well as a lack of any unifying matrices--usually you can't tell what work you're actually in, unless you have deeply memorized it. His form is more open and left for profound contrapuntal and rhythmic experiments until it's dialed back in. I subjectively found it silly that I was asked to give examples of Mozart's superior form. I just think it's obvious: all the incredible details of Mozart's form are quickly stuck in your head from listening, while Bach goes over heads more due to not diverging his structural features as much and having them there to creatively balance. A video analysis should be done however on the Classical matrices of Haydn and Mozart to shed light on why Classical form is so effective at the base-most level, and how Mozart builds on this knowledge exponentially, and likewise where Beethoven dials back on it a bit.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I don't think you care for Brendel's takes on Beethoven and Schubert anyway


I would also uphold Brendel's views on Beethoven and Schubert, - expressive artists whose music moved many people.

I don't think Ethereality's judgement of Bach is fair. But your judgement of Mozart isn't very fair either.
*[ 5:17 ~ 5:54 ]*







consuono said:


> Fabulin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people behave as if there was never music better than Bach's, despite all those composers after his time. As if the history of classical music was that of pure descent from Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of anyone who's knowledgeable about Bach who behaves that way.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha. So funny. Now that I think of it.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> look at every Bach piece and you'll find about a dozen of the same baroque substructures of climax and resolution he capitalizes on to phase and align his form, as well as a lack of any unifying matrices--*usually you can't tell what work you're actually in,* unless you have deeply memorized it.


You can say this, and then tell OTHER people that they can't hear properly?


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> You can say this, and then tell OTHER people that they can't hear properly?


Sorry but I'm not sure what you're saying / what that means. You'll have to explain.

Edit: I was referring to distinguishing which part of the work you're in, ie. "if I know the progression of distinguishing forms within each work then I can tell that I'm in work X and not work Y' OR 'mov 1 instead of mov 3.' Not merely recognizing a work because of stand-out features, like repeating motifs. That's fairly easy. Sorry if the way I worded that part was confusing.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I would also uphold Brendel's views on Beethoven and Schubert, - expressive artists whose music moved many people.
> 
> I don't think Ethereality's judgement of Bach is fair. But your judgement of Mozart isn't very fair either.
> *[ 5:17 ~ 5:54 ]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahahaha. So funny. Now that I think of it.


How so? I never said everything since Bach descends from Bach. Heck, most of the composers since that time up until recently didn't have a full picture of Bach's work anyway. If there was "pure descent" from anyone, it was Handel.

By the way, your propensity for digging up old forum comments is a wee bit...disturbing. :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

SixFootScowl said:


> Perhaps is is not a matter of boring so much as it is that someone is just not into that era of music and therefore finds all of it boring.


But Haydn rarely gets the same bad press from some (the same?) quarters. I think it is maybe that Mozart is damn hard to pigeon hole. Perhaps a lot of people need to know what to expect before they listen to a piece ... and if the piece doesn't deliver that they hear it as lacking?


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> But Haydn rarely gets the same bad press from some (the same?) quarters. I think it is maybe that Mozart is damn hard to pigeon hole.


much of the negative reaction towards Mozart comes in reaction to uncritical adulations he seems to get from some of his fans. When your own experience of his music is incongruent with these adulations, you then declare Mozart to be overrated.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ So you feel that we listen expecting what we have been told is there? That more or less agrees with my point - that a new composer needs open ears. 

But what are these "uncritical adulations"? Enthusiasm, love? Or do you mean to invoke naivety and inexperience? Is disdain for Mozart a "superior" position (of the "you can't fool me" type)?


----------



## JAS

I suspect that what is being suggested is that some people overreact in a negative way to anything that is perceived as being overly praised.

edit: . . . and some people are just grumpy and contrary by nature.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> But Haydn rarely gets the same bad press from some (the same?) quarters.


From what I've seen in various sites, 95% of people who dislike Mozart also dislike Haydn. There are some who like Haydn more than Mozart, but they don't hate Mozart. It seems Mozart gets mentioned more because he's more popular.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Jacck said:


> much of the negative reaction towards Mozart comes in reaction to uncritical adulations he seems to get from some of his fans. When your own experience of his music is incongruent with these adulations, you then declare Mozart to be overrated.


Why "react" at all to what you see as "uncritical adulation"? Despite acknowledging Mahler's technical skill I've never liked his music, but I don't join Mahler-centred threads to say so.


----------



## Jacck

Animal the Drummer said:


> Why "react" at all to what you see as "uncritical adulation"? Despite acknowledging Mahler's technical skill I've never liked his music, but I don't join Mahler-centred threads to say so.


everybody is entitled to start a thread that reads "I love Mozart" and likewise, everybody is entitled to start a thread "Mozart is boring". These are both perfectly valid subjective reactions to Mozart. Unfortunately, people from the opposite camp always join the discussion in those threads and try to convince the other camp why their point is not valid.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> Nope. This is extreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is this:


I don't believe that's even extreme for Bach, which I think this prelude is for more chromatic structures. Still the opening of the Mozart dissonance quartet is stronger.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

There's a lot of Mozart that I love - his late symphonies, half a dozen piano concertos, a lot of chamber music but there is a lot I find boring. For example, all of his violin concertos are very dull to my ears as are many of his earlier works but let's not forget that Mozart wrote a lot when he was a child and teenager and even after he matured not everything he wrote was from inspiration. The best of Mozart is as good as it gets but yeah, there is a lot of filler in his music.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Jacck said:


> everybody is entitled to start a thread that reads "I love Mozart" and likewise, everybody is entitled to start a thread "Mozart is boring". These are both perfectly valid subjective reactions to Mozart. Unfortunately, people from the opposite camp always join the discussion in those threads and try to convince the other camp why their point is not valid.


I think some people got caught up in the semantics. If I worded my thread "I think Mozart's boring, help me understand what I'm missing" instead of "Mozart is boring (or is he?)" it probably would've conveyed my intentions better. I think most people got it anyway though. Besides, if I wanted to just open up some Mozart bashing echo-chamber, I could've just as easily gone to somewhere on the internet called something like www.mozartsucksrocks.com or www.salieriwaycoolerthanmozart.com (sadly, neither of those links work. maybe the sites need maintenance )


----------



## Jacck

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think some people got caught up in the semantics. If I worded my thread "I think Mozart's boring, help me understand what I'm missing" instead of "Mozart is boring (or is he?)" it probably would've conveyed my intentions better. I think most people got it anyway though. Besides, if I wanted to just open up some Mozart bashing echo-chamber, I could've just as easily gone to somewhere on the internet called something like www.mozartsucksrocks.com or www.salieriwaycoolerthanmozart.com (sadly, neither of those links work. maybe the sites need maintenance )


the wording is certainly important. There is a big difference if you start a thread with the title "Help me appreciate Mozart more" and "Why is Mozart so boring?". The first one implies that you are open to argument, the second one that you mind is already made up. Anyway, I also had difficulty getting into Mozart and found him boring and full of musical clichés. It took me 2 years to overcome it and appreciate Mozart. The entry point for me were the string quintets and the piano sonatas, then the operas.


----------



## Bulldog

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There's a lot of Mozart that I love - his late symphonies, half a dozen piano concertos, a lot of chamber music but there is a lot I find boring. For example, all of his violin concertos are very dull to my ears as are many of his earlier works but let's not forget that Mozart wrote a lot when he was a child and teenager and even after he matured not everything he wrote was from inspiration. The best of Mozart is as good as it gets but yeah, there is a lot of filler in his music.


I don't think well of putting priority on a composer's filler works. It's as if a composer's ranking is based on the percentage of total works that are not highly regarded.

By my count, Mozart composed at least 50 masterpieces. For me, that compares favorably with any other composer excepting for Bach.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There's a lot of Mozart that I love - his late symphonies, half a dozen piano concertos, a lot of chamber music but there is a lot I find boring. For example, all of his violin concertos are very dull to my ears as are many of his earlier works but let's not forget that Mozart wrote a lot when he was a child and teenager and even after he matured not everything he wrote was from inspiration. The best of Mozart is as good as it gets but yeah, there is a lot of filler in his music.


I respect your view, but I still think there's a lot of gems in his early period that's neglected by many listeners

*[ 4:57 ~ 5:46 ]
[ 8:50 ~ 11:53 ]
[ 17:42 ~ 19:32 ]*





*[ 2:54 ~ 3:24 ]
[ 5:39 ~ 6:41 ]
[ 7:30 ~ 7:50 ]
[ 13:13 ~ 15:27 ]*


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> There's a lot of Mozart that I love - his late symphonies, half a dozen piano concertos, a lot of chamber music but there is a lot I find boring. For example, *all of his violin concertos are very dull to my ears* as are many of his earlier works but let's not forget that Mozart wrote a lot when he was a child and teenager and even after he matured not everything he wrote was from inspiration. The best of Mozart is as good as it gets but yeah, there is a lot of filler in his music.


If the violin concertos are dull to your ears I can recommend a good audiologist to try and fix your problem!


----------



## Torkelburger

Nitpick--it's been said a few times in the thread that Mozart's music was about symmetry. But in reality, that actually wasn't always the case. He also used asymmetry in very creative ways. Bernstein even gave a famous lecture on the asymmetry in Sym. 40. But that's not the only one. The Marriage of Figaro overture has a lot of asymmetrical/odd numbered-measured phrases throughout as does some of the fantasies. Certainly there must be more. Symmetry does not necessarily make something beautiful. It can often make something sound predictable, ponderous, and plodding after a while.


----------



## Ethereality

Going back to the OP, I actually do think Mozart is the most boring of the 3, but also my favorite of the 3. This is because his boredom usually stems from peoples' misunderstanding of his compositional goals, not any simplicity. I intuitively feel that Mozart could've been more like Bach, but he had a much grander vision towards Romanticism at the time. His enjoyment stems from grasping that vision in its fullest sense, by looking at how all past music and future music converges at his but imo never really matches his perfection in both directions.

Listen to the birth of Romantic symphony in this first movement:


----------



## Jacck

Torkelburger said:


> Nitpick--it's been said a few times in the thread that Mozart's music was about symmetry. But in reality, that actually wasn't always the case. He also used asymmetry in very creative ways. Bernstein even gave a famous lecture on the asymmetry in Sym. 40. But that's not the only one. The Marriage of Figaro overture has a lot of asymmetrical/odd numbered-measured phrases throughout as does some of the fantasies. Certainly there must be more. Symmetry does not necessarily make something beautiful. It can often make something sound predictable, ponderous, and plodding after a while.


What do you mean by symmetry? What does it mean in music? I have some background in mathematics, where symmetry is defined as invariance under a certain operation.


----------



## Torkelburger

Jacck said:


> What do you mean by symmetry? What does it mean in music? I have some background in mathematics, where symmetry is defined as invariance under a certain operation.


It refers to formal elements. Phrases, sentences, periods, etc. For example, phrases will be even-numbered (i.e. four bar phrases will make an eight bar sentence, and two sentences will make a period, etc.) Another example, a two bar antecedent phrase usually stated in the tonic could be answered by a two bar consequent phrase in the same rhythm as the previous phrase but modifying the melody and harmony in the dominant. Another example could be an entire section of a work "balanced" by another subsequent section of equal length.

See the Bernstein lecture available on youtube for further explanation.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Ethereality said:


> Going back to the OP, I actually do think Mozart is the most boring of the 3, but also my favorite of the 3. This is because his boredom usually stems from peoples' *misunderstanding of his compositional goals*, not any simplicity.


I think that pertains to me with Wolfie. Aesthetics is often looked at through a teleological lens (what function does it serve? what does it set out to do?) and I think if you look at something through a narrow frame of mind like that you're bound to be disappointed it doesn't yield the results you're demanding it to. I was talking to my partner a month or two ago about how I don't get a lot of Baroque music and we listened to a Händel piece, and he said that it reminded him more of going on a pleasant train ride through the countryside and looking out the window, not being in any kind of rush, just soaking it in. Listening to the warm sound, letting the melodies and counterpoint bounce off each other, letting it flow by itself etc. It didn't suddenly make me want to start listening to Händel oratorios for hours on end, but it definitely flickered a lightbulb in my brain.

EDIT: Mozart definitely has a distinct goal in mind, it's obviously not aimless. But I think myself and several others treat him like a fish we're demanding to climb a tree.


----------



## Ethereality

Torkelburger said:


> Nitpick--it's been said a few times in the thread that Mozart's music was about symmetry. But in reality, that actually wasn't always the case. He also used asymmetry in very creative ways. Bernstein even gave a famous lecture on the asymmetry in Sym. 40. But that's not the only one. The Marriage of Figaro overture has a lot of asymmetrical/odd numbered-measured phrases throughout as does some of the fantasies. Certainly there must be more. Symmetry does not necessarily make something beautiful. It can often make something sound predictable, ponderous, and plodding after a while.


Very very true. When I mention Mozart's focus on symmetry, I mean his focus on both sides of the spectrum arriving at a temporal complete balance. He had to focus on asymmetry in a number of ways to evolve his works, and was very balanced in thought when it came to larger piece form, banking on expectation, divergence using individualistic symmetry, working in novel statements, and cleverly resolving them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Torkelburger said:


> Nitpick--it's been said a few times in the thread that Mozart's music was about symmetry. But in reality, that actually wasn't always the case. He also used asymmetry in very creative ways.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> If the violin concertos are dull to your ears I can recommend a good audiologist to try and fix your problem!


Could you? I'd love to hear them with different ears and appreciate them


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Listen to the birth of Romantic symphony in this first movement:


If you're referring to the Haffner symphony (which, along with no. 41, is my favorite among the Mozart symphonies), listen to the birth of the Haffner symphony:


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Could you? I'd love to hear them with different ears and appreciate them


Good luck, ear transplants are hard to come by these days. Not a ton of donors in the first place, and most insurance companies say it's cosmetic and don't cover it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

A worthy predecessor to Beethoven's and Wagner's (which are also in the masonic key of C minor):


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> If you're referring to the Haffner symphony (which, along with no. 41, is my favorite among the Mozart symphonies), listen to the birth of the Haffner symphony:


Why yes, I almost forgot about JS's. Maybe not the best example I could've given. Thievery was common practice, in many instances of Bach and Beethoven as well as any composer. Notice anything at 0:57 and throughout this piece?


----------



## consuono

> Why yes, I almost forgot about JS's. Thievery was common practice in many instances of Bach and Beethoven as well, not that all composers didn't do it.


I wouldn't call it "thievery" at all as much as "homage" or "influence". And of course they all did it. It just shows that Mozart didn't just pop out of the blue ready-made with all these masterpieces. Like Bach and Beethoven and all the others he was the sum of his influencers. That's J. C. Bach, son of J. S., by the way. He was one of the biggest influences on Mozart.


----------



## Ethereality

JC, I meant to type that I sweear lol:

The influence of Johann Sebastian Bach


----------



## annaw

Ethereality said:


> Why yes, I almost forgot about JS's. Maybe not the best example I could've given. Thievery was common practice, in many instances of Bach and Beethoven as well as any composer. Notice anything at 0:57 and throughout this piece?


I haven't followed the discussion here, but I have to say, I was NOT expecting this  ! No way!


----------



## consuono

annaw said:


> I haven't followed the discussion here, but I have to say, I was NOT expecting this  ! No way!


I'll refer you back to this which I posted earlier. What does this remind you of? It happened all the time.





Speaking of Handel, *this* -- which was composed c. 1716 -- always reminds me of a certain passage in Handel's works:


----------



## annaw

^ I see . Probably partly a result of huge bodies of works of Classic and Baroque composers as well.


----------



## consuono

This Scarlatti sonata was published (afaik) long after WTC I. What do you hear at about the :40 mark?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> . Notice anything at 0:57 and throughout this piece?


I don't personally find that example particularly striking, compared to this:




( listen to the first half )


----------



## PlaySalieri

mbhaub said:


> Mozart's music bores me, most of it. I can't remember the last time I put on a cd of any of the symphonies - probably before cds even came out! The last 6 symphonies are ok, but the earlier -- forget it. I don't care for any of the concertos: horn, bassoon, violin, piano. The operas - I walked out of the Vienna Staatsoper at the first intermission of Magic Flute I was so bored by it all. Just too early for my taste.
> 
> But...as a performer his music is a blast! It's fun to play any of the symphonies, overtures and I've even played The Marriage of Figaro at an opera festival. The part (bassoon 2) is quite challenging but it was so much fun to do - really puts your double tonguing to the test.
> 
> I'm not alone, either. *There have been several big name composers who also didn't care for Mozart, *Schoenberg among them.


You wont back up your case there Im afraid - Schoenberg doted on Mozart and so did virtually every other major composer - I can only think of Gershwin who didnt like Mozart.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mozart wrote a lot of music, something like 600 opus numbers in a comparatively short life. If he wrote 60 masterpieces, that still leaves 90% of music that is not a masterpiece. Of this 90% even if some of it is boring (admittedly boring is in the mind of the listener), it doesn't make Mozart a lesser composer. I count him among my top 10 favourite composers despite the fact I find a lot of his music boring 

The music I don't find boring is more than many other top composers wrote in their lifetimes. Mozart just wrote a lot, like he seems to have had nothing else to do except write music.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Could you? I'd love to hear them with different ears and appreciate them


You should be able to hear the cleverness, the inventiveness and the youthful emoting in the marvelous sequence, each maturing one after another. We're very lucky to have them. Listen to them in order.


----------



## Luchesi

Mahler's last word before he died was "Mozart".


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Luchesi said:


> Mahler's last word before he died was "Mozart".


Mahler was actually trying to say More Tzatziki.


----------



## consuono

PlaySalieri said:


> You wont back up your case there Im afraid - Schoenberg doted on Mozart and so did virtually every other major composer - I can only think of Gershwin who didnt like Mozart.


I don't think Stravinsky was a huge Mozart fan.


----------



## Luchesi

I think the weaknesses we can find are not Mozart's fault.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Mozart wrote a lot of music, something like 600 opus numbers in a comparatively short life. If he wrote 60 masterpieces, that still leaves 90% of music that is not a masterpiece. Of this 90% even if some of it is boring (admittedly boring is in the mind of the listener), it doesn't make Mozart a lesser composer. I count him among my top 10 favourite composers despite the fact I find a lot of his music boring


I don't think he wrote that much "crap" as some people seem to think. How much percentage of a composers' oeuvre you find interesting depends on how much you're into his aesthetics, but we should also remember quite a number of pieces in the Kochel catalogue that were found to be not Mozart's authentic works were dropped out, and moved to the "K. Ahn. 000" list. For example, I find spatzenmesse K.220 and misericordias domini K.222 interesting (for reasons I described in earlier posts in this thread: #32 , #33 , please read them.), but works nearest to them in terms of Kochel number, 221 and 223 were dropped out of the official catalogue as they were proven to be not Mozart's. 
Also, if you think of some random Kochel numbers (that you don't know which Mozart works they belong to) and type them on the google or youtube, you'll often find that they belong to short arias or canons, or short vocal pieces.
Some people say Mozart wrote (prior to age 18) some 20~30 symphonies that are not very interesting - but in terms of actual "size", they're not that "massive". 



 some are "overtures". And others are also short in length, if played without repeats: 



. 
I just think of them as Mozart's equivalents of Mendelssohn's string symphonies.

According to wikipedia, these are the authentic serenades: 
No. 4 in D, K. 203 ("Colloredo")
No. 5 in D, K. 204
No. 6 in D, K. 239 ("Serenata Notturna")
No. 7 in D, K. 250 ("Haffner")
No. 9 in D, K. 320 ("Posthorn")
No. 10 in B♭, K. 361 ("Gran Partita")
No. 11 in E♭, K. 375
No. 12 in C minor, K. 388
No. 13 in G, K. 525 ("Eine kleine Nachtmusik")

and divertimentos by Mozart:
No. 3 in E♭, K. 166
No. 4 in B♭, K. 186 
No. 8 in F, K. 213
No. 9 in B♭, K. 240
No. 11 in D, K. 251
No. 12 in E♭, K. 252
No. 13 in F, K. 253
No. 14 in B♭, K. 270
No. 15 in B♭, K. 287
No. 17 in D, K. 334
A Musical Joke in F, K. 522
Divertimento in E♭, K. 563

You're still entitled to your opinion, (but based on what you said in your post) I still think "it depends on how you look at it", if you focus on what you find interesting in an artist, he'll appear as a glass half-full, but if you focus on what you find uninteresting, he'll appear as a glass half-empty.

I just like to focus on what I find interesting.
I find the credo energetic and glorious, with the richness of its part-writing:


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> Gershwin didnt like Mozart.


"Gershwin especially admired Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Wagner, Brahms, Rimsky-Korsakov, Richard Strauss, and Stravinsky"
https://books.google.ca/books?id=RySwdc151ZoC&pg=PA136



consuono said:


> I don't think Stravinsky was a huge Mozart fan.


"Stravinsky admitted to having studied Mozart's operas closely as models and declared himself ''Mozart's continuer.''"
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/23/...rethinking-a-mostly-mozartean-stravinsky.html
https://books.google.ca/books?id=AiGs599RoT4C&pg=PA141














"Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." 
< Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 46 >


----------



## tdc

Charles Ives and Glenn Gould did not like Mozart's music. Those are the only two big names I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, Boulez perhaps, though I think Boulez hated virtually everyone's music except his own.


----------



## tdc

Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, Brahms op. 116-119, and Ravel's Miroirs are all easily among my very favorite compositions. In other words Mozart's expanded use of form is not that big of a deal to me in terms of my personal views on aesthetics. Actually, I think I love Mozart despite sonata form, not because of it. It is the same with Brahms. Those are actually the only two composers in my top 5 that are heavily reliant on sonata form.


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> Mozart's expanded use of form is not that big of a deal to me in terms of my personal views on aesthetics. Actually, I think I love Mozart despite sonata form, not because of it.


Same on the latter-- it's kind of obvious since most of the great composers aren't Classical. I'm not sure what 'sonata form' has to do with a lot of the complex personality and balance of Mozart's expansive forms. Sonata form in its basic rules is something a child learns and overcomes to get anywhere with Classical, a child like Cimarosa, but when we talk about Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, there's a whole lot more complicated and intelligent going on with their form in all varieties.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Glenn Gould did not like Mozart's music.


Gould said he liked Mozart's fugues though, 



 (It's worth noting that there were fugues Gould didn't like: he disliked Bach's chromatic fantasy and never played the associated fugue 



)
Charles Ives was kind of like Boulez and Cage, he just didn't like much of the classical music canon.

"Charles Ives had no use for Mozart, Haydn Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and Wagner"
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/21/...-rebel-natural-avantgardist-charles-ives.html


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't believe that's even extreme for Bach, which I think this prelude is for more chromatic structures. Still the opening of the Mozart dissonance quartet is stronger.


















I personally don't get why people like consuono try to make it seem like the Art of the Fugue is a particularly striking work in its use of dissonance, (there are chromatically interesting moments like the 7th piece) but on the whole, I think it's a work with a different aim from for example, Mozart's K.426/K.546. To me, the Art of the Fugue is one of those works of Bach that feel "subdued" in terms of feelings. I don't know how to describe it, but it constantly leads to what I hear as consonances and it is somewhat "confined" within that boundary.

I don't really mean to put down the Art of the Fugue. It's a monumental work that represents the culmination of baroque fugal techniques,- "it had to be written". But it focuses more on the pedagogical aspect of fugal writing rather than "personal expression", as if it's more like Bach's business-like way of telling the future composers: "this is the way to write a double fugue, and a triple fugue with subjects derived from the earlier one, this is the way to mirror, invert them etc etc". It seems more like a manual or something, like "gradus ad parnassum". A significant work in the canon, nonetheless.

I think Bach has more "personal expression" in the amazing B minor fugue of Well-Tempered Clavier book 1 (which Schoenberg declared as the first twelve-tone music) or the A minor prelude, which you cited in your comment. Overall, I find the Well-Tempered Clavier more colorful and richer in "personal expression" than the Art of the Fugue.
And I still think Bach's and Mozart's chromaticisms are apples and oranges. Bach seems to focus more on the older values, - he expresses "sublimity through religious fervor and devotion" (I feel this in Bach's secular works such as the F sharp minor fugue of Well-Tempered Clavier book 2 and Fantasie BWV944). 
Mozart is more about operatic drama, more dionysian qualities (there are papers that discuss that the key of D minor represents "supernatural vengeance" in Mozart https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/...3/Wilks_Alexa_V_201506_DMA_thesis.pdf#page=26 )

Bach's vocal works don't sound like this:












his instrumental suites don't sound like this:




his concertos don't sound like this:




his chamber works don't sound like this:




his keyboard pieces don't sound like this:




 (think of "a cenar teco")
And so Mozart's K.426/K.546 sounds different from Bach. It's as simple as that. 
And later, guys like Wagner came along to change music further. There's nothing hard to understand about this, really.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Mahler's last word before he died was "Mozart".


But what was the question? "Who should be first in the queue for Room 101?"


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> Charles Ives and Glenn Gould did not like Mozart's music. Those are the only two big names I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others, Boulez perhaps, though I think Boulez hated virtually everyone's music except his own.


Gould was a crank and Boulez hated music


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Could you? I'd love to hear them with different ears and appreciate them


Yes spec savers do good hearing test


----------



## Ethereality

MacLeod said:


> But what was the question? "Who should be first in the queue for Room 101?"


----------



## Guest

An alternative opinion on whether Boulez hated music.

https://www.wbur.org/artery/2016/01/08/pierre-boulez-appreciation


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> "Gershwin especially admired Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Wagner, Brahms, Rimsky-Korsakov, Richard Strauss, and Stravinsky"
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=RySwdc151ZoC&pg=PA136
> 
> "Stravinsky admitted to having studied Mozart's operas closely as models and declared himself ''Mozart's continuer.''"
> https://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/23/...rethinking-a-mostly-mozartean-stravinsky.html
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=AiGs599RoT4C&pg=PA141
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mozart later arranged this fugue for strings as well, adding the introductory Adagio, K. 546. The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
> < https://books.google.ca/books?id=LM9qHc9c4C4C&pg=PR46



You really REALLY love that 2-piano fugue, don't you? :lol:


> He [Stravinsky] had come across some Mozart masses in a second-hand bookstore in Los Angeles; "as I played through these rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin, I knew I had to write a Mass of my own, but a real one." That is, he intended to compose a Roman Catholic mass for actual church use. Stravinsky also wrote: "Religious music without religion is almost always vulgar."


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> He [Stravinsky] had come across some Mozart masses in a second-hand bookstore in Los Angeles; "as I played through these rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin, I knew I had to write a Mass of my own, but a real one." That is, he intended to compose a Roman Catholic mass for actual church use. Stravinsky also wrote: "Religious music without religion is almost always vulgar."


What's the source for this? It seems like parts are taken out of their context.

"'Music', he continues, 'is as well or better able to praise than the building of the church and all its decoration: it is the Church's greatest ornament ... religious music without religion is almost always vulgar.'"
< Lennox Berkeley and Friends: Writing, Letters and Interviews. By Lennox Berkeley, Page 125 >

"Religious music without religion is almost always vulgar . It can also be dull . There is dull church music from Hucbald to Haydn , but not vulgar church music . ( Of course there is vulgar church music now , but it is not really of or for the church ."
< Stravinsky, by Roman Vlad - Page 208 >

"Religious music without religion is almost always vulgar. It can also be dull. There is dull church music from Hucbald to Haydn, but not vulgar church music. (Of course there is vulgar church music now, but it is not really of or for the Church.) "
< Caecilia, Volumes 86-87, Society of Saint Caecilia, 1959 >

"So, why did Stravinsky, in 1944, begin work on a liturgical musical form which was alien to his own religious tradition? The answer may be found in his Expositions, where he recounts finding some Masses by Mozart in a second-hand shop in Los Angeles in 1942. He wrote: 'As I played through these rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin, I knew I had to write a Mass of my own, but a real one'. By 'real one' he may have meant a Roman Catholic one that would allow the use of instruments - Stravinsky wrote that he could '…endure unaccompanied singing in only the most harmoniously primitive music'. Like Howells, he eschewed the decorative style and set out to write a work which would be '…very cold music, absolutely cold, that will appeal directly to the spirit'."
Barry Creasy
Chairman
Collegium Musicum of London
http://www.choirs.org.uk/prognotes/Stavinsky Mass.htm


----------



## Marc

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think, like Haydn or Bach, volume works against Mozart here. These guys are writing before the era in which a tortured Romantic composer labored for twenty years on a single work. They're turning out popular music to make a quick buck, to play at dinner parties, or to commemorate regularly occurring church events.
> 
> So for "special" pieces, like the Requiem, one opera or another, the late symphonies, etc., things are a lot more memorable. But there are long stretches of work in which the "same tricks" are employed over and over - much like today's pop music.


Well, since Mozart apparently has written both 'music for the millions' as 'music for the delicate connaisseur', I would claim that he's not boring at all. His oeuvre is proof that he was a master in all genres, and that he was able, in all those genres, to serve all sorts of music listeners. So, lots of variety there. Kudos to the Master!


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


>


Is this you suggesting that The Dude should be in the queue?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Marc said:


> Well, since Mozart apparently has written both 'music for the millions' as 'music for the delicate connaisseur', I would claim that he's not boring at all. His oeuvre is proof that he was a master in all genres, and that he was able, in all those genres, to serve all sorts of music listeners. So, lots of variety there. Kudos to the Master!


Agreed. That very universality sometimes seems to be held against him, as if it's some kind of indication of superficiality, but as far as I'm concerned such a view sets the truth on its head. The fact that Mozart can and does appeal so consistently to amateur and connoisseur alike is a mark of the highest possible artistry.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> An alternative opinion on whether Boulez hated music.
> 
> https://www.wbur.org/artery/2016/01/08/pierre-boulez-appreciation


Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> What's the source for this? It seems like parts are taken out of their context.


Probably, but the "rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin" bit is pretty withering. But then Stravinsky could be pretty bilious.
The source for the quote is somewhere on the Boosey and Hawkes site. I don't really care what this or that composer says for or against whatever other composer. That's just another form of the appeal to authority fallacy. Whatever Wagner said about Mozart doesn't change my opinion.


DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


Well DavidA, there's something we can agree on. I can't understand hating Mozart at all.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think he wrote that much "crap" as some people seem to think.


Undoubtedly, he wrote some very engaging music early in his career. I am not bashing Mozart, as it should be obvious from my comments. My point is that I find a lot of his music not all that interesting despite the fact that I love many of his other works. He wrote a lot and not all of it is great. Probably none of it is crap but I need more than just not crap to enjoy music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


More like anyone who hates Mozart, hates Mozart's music. Mozart does not define music, no matter how great he was.


----------



## janxharris

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> but I need more than just not crap to enjoy music.


Did make me chuckle.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


I would make it less drastic:

Anyone who hates Mozart more than post-70's Wayne Shorter hates music.


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> I would make it less drastic:
> 
> Anyone who hates Mozart more than post-70's Wayne Shorter hates music.


Never heard of Mr. Shorter.


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> Never heard of Mr. Shorter.


famous youtuber and jazz musician adam neely claims music theory is racist


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


Absurd statement. With the plethora of genres and styles within each genre, there is an enormous amount of music other than classical much less limiting it to Mozart. Mozart is one of the greatest composers but the classical period is not for everyone.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nothing wrong with finding Mozart boring. Hatred, on the other hand, is weird — unless one was locked in a cell and subjected to it at high volume 24/7 by that one Guantanamo guard who didn't like death metal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Probably, but the "rococo-operatic sweets-of-sin" bit is pretty withering.


Sure. It's hilarious to imagine Stravinsky actually meant that playing or listening to this stuff gave him diabetes. lol

*[ 4:31 ]*: "magna opera domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus"





Even as an enthusiast, I can agree Mozart is not for everyone.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


That makes as much sense as Boulez saying he hates Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> Absurd statement. With the plethora of genres and styles within each genre, there is an enormous amount of music other than classical much less limiting it to Mozart. Mozart is one of the greatest composers but the classical period is not for everyone.


Of course it's not absurd. I'm not saying everyone must go mad after Mozart but as Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers anyone who hates his music hates music. I can't see how anyone can argue with the logic of that.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> That makes as much sense as Boulez saying he hates Mozart.


Thanks! You have just proved my point!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> Of course it's not absurd. I'm not saying everyone must go mad after Mozart but as Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers anyone who hates his music hates music. I can't see how anyone can argue with the logic of that.


You first need to prove your premise before you can make claims to the infallibility of your logic. "Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers" is just your opinion.


----------



## Bluecrab

DavidA said:


> Of course it's not absurd. I'm not saying everyone must go mad after Mozart but as Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers anyone who hates his music hates music. I can't see how anyone can argue with the logic of that.


"Logic?" That statement is utterly devoid of any proper logic.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> Of course it's not absurd. I'm not saying everyone must go mad after Mozart but as Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers anyone who hates his music hates music. I can't see how anyone can argue with the logic of that.


Your statement is absolutely absurd and its lack of logic is glaringly obvious. One can love music _and_ find Mozart boring.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> Your statement is absolutely absurd and its lack of logic is glaringly obvious. One can love music _and_ find Mozart boring.


You have obviously not read what I said. Please go back and read it before you start talking about logic. The first requirement of logic is to know what you are talking about


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Nothing wrong with finding Mozart boring. Hatred, on the other hand, is weird - unless one was locked in a cell and subjected to it at high volume 24/7 by that one Guantanamo guard who didn't like death metal.


A public radio station in a place where I lived programmed Mozart so constantly that I began to feel as if I _were_ locked in a cell. I hated Mozart temporarily and often.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> A public radio station in a place where I lived programmed Mozart so constantly that I began to feel as if I _were_ locked in a cell. I hated Mozart temporarily and often.


Mozart over outdoor speakers was used for a while in Cincinnati as a loiterer repellent, oddly, in a neighborhood not far from the conservatory.


----------



## SanAntone

DavidA said:


> You have obviously not read what I said. Please go back and read it before you start talking about logic. The first requirement of logic is to know what you are talking about


What you wrote is not difficult to comprehend.

Let's review:



> I'm not saying everyone must go mad after Mozart but as *Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers anyone who hates his music hates music*. I can't see how anyone can argue with the logic of that.


There is no logic in that statement.

You make a claim, "Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers" a claim which cannot be proven, we just have to take your word for it. And you use this questionable statement to prop up your next claim, "anyone who hates [Mozart's] music hates music."

Well, no. Anyone who "hates" Mozart's music, hates _his_ music and there is no logical reason that they must hate all music.


----------



## Bluecrab

SanAntone said:


> Well, no. Anyone who "hates" Mozart's music, hates _his_ music and there is no logical reason that they must hate all music.


You're right, of course. But I suspect that you'd make more progress trying to convince a brick wall of this.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I quite like cooking. My feeling with much Mozart is that it is like a very well executed sauce, but where a key piquant ingredient is understated. I couldn't criticise the tartare sauce, except that it doesn't have as many capers in it as I would like. Others might find my preferred recipe lacking in finesse.

I'm more of a Haydn fan - I tend to find that, to my taste, his pieces contain more little flavour sensations.


----------



## SanAntone

Bluecrab said:


> You're right, of course. But I suspect that you'd make more progress trying to convince a brick wall of this.


This thought had occurred to me. I won't be indulging in this argument any further.


----------



## Guest

Boulez certainly conducted Mozart, so he wasn't quite as anti as 'hate' seems to imply.


----------



## DavidA

SanAntone said:


> What you wrote is not difficult to comprehend.
> 
> Let's review:
> 
> There is no logic in that statement.
> 
> You make a claim, "Mozart is perhaps the most naturally musical of all composers" a claim which cannot be proven, we just have to take your word for it. And you use this questionable statement to prop up your next claim, "anyone who hates [Mozart's] music hates music."
> 
> Well, no. Anyone who "hates" Mozart's music, hates _his_ music and there is no logical reason that they must hate all music.


This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. Therefore My statement logically follows to anyone apart from anyone who hasn't got logic in their brain. But anyway it's not worth arguing about. Who cares about whether people who don't like Mozart anyway? There are people who don't enjoy the good things in life. They are the losers.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. Therefore My statement logically follows to anyone apart from anyone who hasn't got logic in their brain. But anyway it's not worth arguing about. Who cares about whether people who don't like Mozart anyway? There are people who don't enjoy the good things in life. They are the losers.


Are appeals to authority logical fallacies DavidA?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> *This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend*. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. Therefore My statement logically follows to anyone *apart from anyone who hasn't got logic in their brain*. But anyway it's not worth arguing about. Who cares about whether *people who don't like Mozart* anyway? There are people who don't enjoy the good things in life. They *are the losers*.


"It's not worth arguing about...but nevertheless, let me take this opportunity to insult you, those with no logic in their brain and those losers who don't like Mozart."

BTW, where is your evidence that 'Boulez hated Mozart', and how does that contribute to our understanding of whether Mozart is 'boring' or not?


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. Therefore My statement logically follows to anyone apart from anyone who hasn't got logic in their brain. But anyway it's not worth arguing about. Who cares about whether people who don't like Mozart anyway? There are people who don't enjoy the good things in life. They are the losers.


If recognized experts in field Y say X is one of the most brilliant authors of work in field Y, saying you don't like X means you don't like the whole of field Y.

This is not logical. Just because most art experts hold up Michealangelo as an exemplar in the field of painting, me not enjoying Michaelangelo's work does not commit me to further idea that I don't like visual art.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers.


Unless you have evidence to support your claim, I'll have to consider it nothing more than subjective preference on your part.


----------



## consuono

DavidA said:


> This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. ...


This after spending lots of snarky posts in some other thread a while back deriding the idea of "most greatest, most bestest" etc etc :lol:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. Therefore My statement logically follows to anyone apart from anyone who hasn't got logic in their brain. But anyway it's not worth arguing about. Who cares about whether people who don't like Mozart anyway? There are people who don't enjoy the good things in life. They are the losers.


Most naturally gifted is a meaningless phrase. What exactly do you think it means in the context of enjoying Mozart's music? Just because people are naturally gifted, it does not imply their musical output should be universally enjoyed.

You seem to conflate your very subjective views of the world with objective reality.


----------



## JAS

Is this some new form of the Mozart Effect?


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC

Like any other composer, I think that there are going to be certain pieces that you will love and others that you will find boring or forgetful For me, I will re-listen to certain works of his including the late symphonies, the horn concertos, the operas, and the Requiem. I don't often listen to his other concertos, earlier symphonies, and piano works (probably haven't listened to the Turkish March in at least a year). Depends on what you want to hear from Mozart. I am a French horn player and I love opera, so the horn concertos and Don Giovanni are going to be my go-tos while Turkish March can sit on the bench.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Most naturally gifted is a meaningless phrase. What exactly do you think it means in the context of enjoying Mozart's music? Just because people are naturally gifted, it does not imply their musical output should be universally enjoyed.


Exactly. You could argue these are also "flawlessly-crafted with stunning complexity blah blah":








But that doesn't mean everyone has to enjoy listening to them


----------



## Luchesi

ThaNotoriousNIC said:


> Like any other composer, I think that there are going to be certain pieces that you will love and others that you will find boring or forgetful For me, I will re-listen to certain works of his including the late symphonies, the horn concertos, the operas, and the Requiem. I don't often listen to his other concertos, earlier symphonies, and piano works (probably haven't listened to the Turkish March in at least a year). Depends on what you want to hear from Mozart. I am a French horn player and I love opera, so the horn concertos and Don Giovanni are going to be my go-tos while Turkish March can sit on the bench.


How does clicking buttons to get our Mozart fix deflate or trivialize the experience of Mozart? He composed for different groups and for different settings. He couldn't know how we would listen (and unfairly scrutinize his offerings).

Maybe it has no unfortunate effects. We click forward and back and skip to the next major work, but hopefully we keep in mind what he was composing for, for his audiences, for those musical occasions. What did he have to work with (the fundamental musical elements)? The Baroque was over. I mean, there were no Beethovenian sounds yet. They would have sounded graceless and vulgar when Mozart was growing up.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> Are appeals to authority logical fallacies DavidA?


I haven't a clue what you mean and I don't think you have either


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> "It's not worth arguing about...but nevertheless, let me take this opportunity to insult you, those with no logic in their brain and those losers who don't like Mozart."
> 
> BTW, where is your evidence that 'Boulez hated Mozart', and how does that contribute to our understanding of whether Mozart is 'boring' or not?


It is not worth arguing about and I didn't say what you said. You have said that. Please do not put words into other peoples mouths


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Unless you have evidence to support your claim, I'll have to consider it nothing more than subjective preference on your part.


Just that it's a preference on a few more peoples parts who are perhaps more qualified than we are

http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html


----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> This after spending lots of snarky posts in some other thread a while back deriding the idea of "most greatest, most bestest" etc etc :lol:


You do not read what people say. I didn't say Mozart was the greatest composer I said that people generally say he is the most naturally gifted of all composers. The problem is you don't read what people say. For example Mozart was more naturally gifted than Beethoven in actually writing music. Whether he was a great composer is a matter of debate


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It is not worth arguing about and I didn't say what you said. You have said that. Please do not put words into other peoples mouths


It is what you said. I quoted your words.

And your reference for Boulez 'hating Mozart'?


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Most naturally gifted is a meaningless phrase. What exactly do you think it means in the context of enjoying Mozart's music? Just because people are naturally gifted, it does not imply their musical output should be universally enjoyed.
> 
> You seem to conflate your very subjective views of the world with objective reality.


You say most naturally gifted is a meaningless phrases and then go on to use it


----------



## Ethereality

I'd rather listen to Palladio or Hungarian Dance no.5 than read any more of this thread.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> It is what you said. I quoted your words.
> 
> And your reference for Boulez 'hating Mozart'?


You did nor quote my words at all. And I was not the one who said that Boulez hated Mozart. You really didn't need to learn to read what people say if you're going to nitpick like this. For goodness sake haven't we drag this out long enough now for goodness sake leave it


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> I'd rather listen to Palladio or Hungarian Dance no.5 than read any more of this thread.


I agree let's leave it there and agree to differ


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> You did nor quote my words at all. And I was not the one who said that Boulez hated Mozart. You really didn't need to learn to read what people say if you're going to nitpick like this. For goodness sake haven't we drag this out long enough now for goodness sake leave it


My bad. Where is your source for saying Boulez hated music? (your post #202) and implying that he hated Mozart (your post #211).

Why should I leave it? You wish to make unsupported assertions about Boulez, and insult other posters here (as I have shown in my post #238.)


----------



## consuono

DavidA said:


> You do not read what people say. I didn't say Mozart was the greatest composer I said that people generally say he is the most naturally gifted of all composers. The problem is you don't read what people say. For example Mozart was more naturally gifted than Beethoven in actually writing music. Whether he was a great composer is a matter of debate


You describe Mozart in a comparative way using subjective criteria. It doesn't require a close reading.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> My bad. Where is your source for saying Boulez hated music? (your post #202) and implying that he hated Mozart (your post #211).
> 
> Why should I leave it? You wish to make unsupported assertions about Boulez, and insult other posters here (as I have shown in my post #238.)


Someone said on this thread Boulez hated Mozart and I responded to it. I never actually use the phrase. If you go through with your usual fine tooth comb every thread you will no doubt discover. Why are you are so interested in a throwaway remark I have no idea. I have not made the original remark about Boulez. In fact I have no idea whether he liked a Mozart or not. Please find the person who did and asked them to explain it.


----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> You describe Mozart in a comparative way using subjective criteria. It doesn't require a close reading.


But when you apply the same criteria to another composer that is alright? You do it all the time


----------



## Guest

You said:



DavidA said:


> Gould was a crank and *Boulez hated music*


I posted a link to an article showing a different view of Boulez



MacLeod said:


> An alternative opinion on whether Boulez hated music.
> 
> https://www.wbur.org/artery/2016/01/08/pierre-boulez-appreciation


To which you replied:



DavidA said:


> *Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!*


Now, where is the source for your claim that Boulez hated music?

As for the idea that these were throwaway remarks, you went on to say,



DavidA said:


> This is obviously difficult for you to comprehend. It is widely taken among people who are far greater musicians than the and me musicians (and we could produce endless quotes) that Mozart is the most naturally gifted of all composers. Therefore My statement logically follows to anyone apart from anyone who hasn't got logic in their brain. But anyway it's not worth arguing about. Who cares about whether people who don't like Mozart anyway? There are people who don't enjoy the good things in life. They are the losers.


You wish not just to defend Mozart but to attack and insult those who who fail to appreciate him.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You said:
> 
> I posted a link to an article showing a different view of Boulez
> 
> To which you replied:
> 
> Now, where is the source for your claim that Boulez hated music?
> 
> As for the idea that these were throwaway remarks, you went on to say,
> 
> You wish not just to defend Mozart but to attack and insult those who who fail to appreciate him.


Can you please find then the previous link which said that Boulez hated Mozart which started the whole thing off. I must confess I do find you unwanted insults and accusation exceedingly pointless as is the dragging out of this pointless discussion. But you seem to have a need to do this sort of thing. Frankly I would've thought you had better things to do with your time then go through all these threads. I'm reading Swafford's book on Beethoven at the moment and I would've thought that was a better thing to occupy your time with rather than bickering about this


----------



## tdc

I made a claim a few pages back that I thought maybe Boulez disliked Mozart, based on a post I read on Mozart's guestbook thread by member Mandryka a while ago. So it was second hand and pretty speculative. That said when one speculates that Boulez probably disliked a certain composer, I think the chances are pretty decent they will be right.


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> I made a claim a few pages back that I thought maybe Boulez disliked Mozart, based on a post I read on Mozart's guestbook thread by member Mandryka a while ago. So it was second hand and pretty speculative. That said when one speculates that Boulez probably disliked a certain composer, I think the chances are pretty decent they will be right.


Fine and I made an offhand statement which apparently some people have attached as much importance to as a PhD thesis.. Now for goodness sake let's put it to bed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Cage said that "'If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same,' 'But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different. '" Looking at Boulez's music (I'm not saying it's bad) , I suspect he has the same mentality. I consider avant-garde music a different genre from "classical music" anyway.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Can you please find then the previous link which said that Boulez hated Mozart which started the whole thing off. I must confess I do find *you unwanted insults and accusation *exceedingly pointless as is the dragging out of this pointless discussion. But you seem to have a need to do this sort of thing. Frankly I would've thought you had better things to do with your time then go through all these threads. I'm reading Swafford's book on Beethoven at the moment and I would've thought that was a better thing to occupy your time with rather than bickering about this


Sorry to be pointless - but what insults? What accusations? I'm pointing to your posts (aside from my earlier misquote which I already acknowledged), challenging what you said, asking you to take responsibility for _your _words. Never mind what someone else said.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Sorry to be pointless - but what insults? What accusations? I'm pointing to your posts (aside from my earlier misquote which I already acknowledged), challenging what you said, asking you to take responsibility for _your _words. Never mind what someone else said.


Sorry mate but I'm not getting into a slanging match with you. Surely we discuss this enough without all this. Surely both of us have got better things to do


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate but I'm not getting into a slanging match with you. Surely we discuss this enough without all this. Surely both of us have got better things to do


Not so pointless that you couldn't find time to accuse me of insulting you. This whole thread, and the last few pages, have dealt with the meat of the topic, and you have happily joined in to slag off those who don't appreciate Mozart. If this is all as pointless as you now claim, you can comfortably withdraw your remarks and forsake the discussion altogether.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Not so pointless that you couldn't find time to accuse me of insulting you. This whole thread, and the last few pages, have dealt with the meat of the topic, and you have happily joined in to slag off those who don't appreciate Mozart. If this is all as pointless as you now claim, you can comfortably withdraw your remarks and forsake the discussion altogether.


If it gives you satisfaction I will do that. You win the argument my friend. If it makes you happy to win this is totally pointless argument I withdraw from it. Frankly I have better things to do with my time than utterly pointless arguments which go over again and again. I'll get back to my book on Beethoven


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html


I take a grain of salt when reading this stuff;
in 1821, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called Mendelssohn more talented than Mozart. Yet, I want to spend more time listening to this




than Mendelssohn's octet.
And I don't really care about the Albert Einstein quote about Mozart (for example), - he didn't take part in the classical music tradition. 
Why do we even have to listen to what he said especially - just because he had a really high IQ?


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> I take a grain of salt when reading this stuff;
> in 1821, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called Mendelssohn more talented than Mozart. Yet, I want to spend more time listening to this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> than Mendelssohn's octet.
> And I don't really care about the Albert Einstein quote about Mozart (for example), - he didn't take part in the classical music tradition.
> Why do we even have to listen to what he said especially - just because he had a really high IQ?


No question that at the same age (the Octet) Mendelssohn probably showed more promise than Mozart. Of course, his subsequent development did not match the earlier master even though he wrote some fine music


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> No question that at the same age (the Octet) Mendelssohn probably showed more promise than Mozart. Of course, his subsequent development did not match the earlier master even though he wrote some fine music


My point is that I take a grain of salt when reading those quotes you cited, like Albert Einstein's.
I think "natural talent" is a vague concept too. (Heck, even Cage is called a "genius") 
I even want to listen to Mozart's other works in 1772~1774 -- such as K.125, K.167, K.173, K.183, K.192~195 




but I rarely ever want to listen to Mendelssohn's early works. So in my case, it doesn't matter to me if Mendelssohn was talented or not , or whether Goethe called him the greatest talent who ever lived. What matters to me is I don't want to listen to his early works. Can you explain to me objectively how Mendelssohn showed more promise than Mozart?
The same logic applies to Mozart. Some people don't care if Mozart was talented or not. They just want to listen to whatever music that interests them.


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> My point is that I take a grain of salt when reading those quotes you cited, like Albert Einstein's.
> I think "natural talent" is a vague concept too. (Heck, even Cage is called a "genius" these days)
> I even want to listen to Mozart's other works in 1772~1774 -- such as K.125, K.167, K.173, K.183, K.192~195
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I rarely ever want to listen to Mendelssohn's early works. So in my case, it doesn't matter to me if Mendelssohn was talented or not. What matters to me is I don't want to listen to his early works. Can you explain to me objectively how Mendelssohn showed more promise than Mozart?
> The same logic applies to Mozart. Some people don't care if Mozart was talented or not. They just want to listen to whatever music that interests them.


Of course I can't explain it totally objectively. But then you're not being bjective either. . Just that many peopke who know a lot more about music than I do reckon that Mendelssohn showed greater promise in the Octet and the Midsummer Nights Dream Overture than Mozart at a comparative age. But if you don't like them please don't listen. I just happen to think they are rather wonderful


----------



## consuono

DavidA said:


> But when you apply the same criteria to another composer that is alright? You do it all the time


So why the snarkfest when I stated my opinion that Bach is the greatest composer? "Har har...greatest?!?!? Wazzat?!?!?!?"


> Fine and I made an offhand statement which apparently some people have attached as much importance to as a PhD thesis...


Yeah, I know the feeling.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DavidA said:


> You say most naturally gifted is a meaningless phrases and then go on to use it


You are reaching for straws here. I reference it in relation to your comment and show the flaw in your "argument".

It's OK to admit the fallacy in your logic. It's alright. We won't think any less of you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Just that many peopke who know a lot more about music than I do reckon that Mendelssohn showed greater promise in the Octet and the Midsummer Nights Dream Overture than Mozart at a comparative age.


For one thing, I think the use of dissonance in early Mozart is edgier




















But at the same time, I'm sure there are plenty of other people who find early Mendelssohn more interesting and less pleasant than early Mozart (I like Eclectic Al's analogy to cooking), for some other reasons they think early Mozart is lacking compared to early Mendelssohn.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I tend to agree with Hammeredklavier. I find Mozart's Missa Brevis much more interesting than Mendelssohn's Octet and Midsummer Night's Overture, and the fact he came well before Mendelssohn tells me Mozart was the greater genius.


----------



## jdec

hammeredklavier said:


> *I take a grain of salt when reading this stuff;*
> in 1821, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called Mendelssohn more talented than Mozart. Yet, I want to spend more time listening to this
> 
> than Mendelssohn's octet.
> *And I don't really care about the Albert Einstein quote about Mozart (for example)*, - he didn't take part in the classical music tradition.
> *Why do we even have to listen to what he said especially* - just because he had a really high IQ?


That's odd, because you used to quote a lot David Wright as appeal of authority when bashing Chopin and Schubert.


----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> So why the snarkfest when I stated my opinion that Bach is the greatest composer? "Har har...greatest?!?!? Wazzat?!?!?!?"
> Yeah, I know the feeling.


You read the book 'Games people play'? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You are reaching for straws here. I reference it in relation to your comment and show the flaw in your "argument".
> 
> It's OK to admit the fallacy in your logic. It's alright. We won't think any less of you.


I think you are even lacking straws but never mind!


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I tend to agree with Hammeredklavier. I find Mozart's Missa Brevis much more interesting than Mendelssohn's Octet and Midsummer Night's Overture, and the fact he came well before Mendelssohn tells me Mozart was the greater genius.


You are welcome to your opinion! Others obviously think differently! Wouldn't it be dull if everyone thought the same!

Just to point out that the Missa Brevis was completed in 8 August 1774 when Mozart was 18.
The Octet was written when Mendelssohn was 16 and the Dream overture at 17

Just to say I know Mozart flowered into the greater genius and wrote the greater music by far. Just the early stages we are talking about


----------



## hammeredklavier

jdec said:


> That's odd, because you used to quote a lot David Wright as appeal of authority when bashing Chopin and Schubert.


I never used him as appeal of authority. And I only mainly used his Schubert article, and I only used it as a resource, because I thought he summarized certain "elements" of Schubert that don't really appeal to me. The Schubert article has a few fair points, the Chopin article is I think badly written (contains too much attacks on the artist's personal life rather than his music).


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> I never used him as appeal of authority. And I only mainly used his Schubert article, and I only used it as a resource, because I thought he summarized certain "elements" of Schubert that don't really appeal to me. The Schubert article has a few fair points, the Chopin article is I think badly written (contains too much attacks on the artist's personal life rather than his music).


Looking at the Schubert article I wouldn't take too much notice of what Dr Wright says about music. The only thing one can say is that his opinions on music appear to be consistently misguided and ill-considered.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Just to point out that the Missa Brevis was completed in 8 August 1774 when Mozart was 18.
> The Octet was written when Mendelssohn was 16 and the Dream overture at 17


Mozart wrote this choral fugue (pignus futurae gloriae from litaniae de venerabili altaris sacramento K.125) at the age of 16 and it also has elements that I told you about in post #275 (3:22, albeit not as strong as the examples of 1773~1774)


----------



## consuono

DavidA said:


> You read the book 'Games people play'? :lol:


No...did you write it? :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## DavidA

consuono said:


> No...did you write it? :lol:


No but I read it and can tell when people are playing


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Looking at the Schubert article I wouldn't take too much notice of what Dr Wright says about music. The only thing one can say is that his opinions on music appear to be consistently misguided and ill-considered.


Oh Jeez, stop calling him Dr. Wright already! The man has a performance degree. Real musical scholars with advanced degrees in music history, theory, or any other such discipline don't use that honorific. Only posers with feelings of inadequacy do.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## RogerWaters

He isn't boring: however you have to do a bit of digging to find the right pieces. Undoubtedly, Mozart wrote a lot of 'pleasant' sounding music for 18th-century aristocratic patrons and/or affections, hot off the heels of the flowery Rococco movement. Unlike a Beethoven, for instance, I think the difference between profound Mozart and other Mozart can be quite subtle. At any rate it has taken me sometime to differentiate and I want to suggest this may be similar for others.

Unlike some, I don't think later always = better. For instance, I find the early* Divertimenti K136-138* to be exquisit works, however thrashed some isolated movements therein. The recording by Koopman (including also the wonderful *Divertimento K251*) is exemplary for bringing out the seemingly-effortless beauty of these works.

The* Violin Concertos* (Barati's recording) and the first *Flute Concerto K313* (Krabatsch's recording) are other earlyish favourites. I also love Savall's collection which includes *Serenade K239*, and especially *Notturno K286* (along with the later 'Eine Kleine Nachtmusik'). Period performance is a must for me with these earlier works - transparency, loftiness and grace are expressions that come to mind. Often profundity in music requires heaviness/sadness/'weight' - with these works Mozart seems to be the composer who reachers the sublime but via a different route - and that is a discovery in-itself.

Mid-to-late Mozart strikes me as a bit more 'intellectual'. Must-haves for me are as follows:

- *Clarinet Concerto K622* (Dieltjens' recording/HIP)
- *Clarinet Quintet K581* (Arcanto Quartet + someone else)
- *Piano Concertos 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 27* (Perahia)
- *The Piano Quartets* (Beaux Arts Trio with some other guy)
- *Requiem K626*
- *'Haydn' String Quartets* (Quatuor Mosaiques/HIP is a MUST for me here, and maybe you)
- *Last 4 String Quintets* (Hausmusik/HIP)
- *Last 4 Symphonies* (Walter recording, for vigor and presence - Rosen reports that Mozart always wanted more low end in his orchestras, and this certainly delivers. Symphony 40 is epic).

The following are well-regarded later works, for which I don't care much. They seem to be well-crafted but 'floofy'.

- String Trio K563 (some nice movements, particularly the 1st, but altogether too long with too little in the way of emotional depth/contrasts to retain my engagement for some 45-50 minutes)
- Oboe Quartet K370
- Horn Quintet K407
- Piano & Wind Quintet 452
- Horn Concertos

When it comes to his operas, I steer well clear. Light entertainment for a different and easily-excitable era, it seems to me. Too many wigs and powdered 18th-century faces.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Unlike some, I don't think later always = better. For instance, I find the early* divertimenti K136-138* to be exquisit works, however thrashed some isolated movements therein. The recording by Koopman is exemplary for bringing out the seemingly-effortless beauty of these works.


I like the chromaticism in this one. It foreshadows his own Haydn quartets:
*[ 1:43 ~ 1:52 ]
[ 3:17 ~ 3:38 ]
[ 7:48 ~ 7:53 ]
[ 8:24 ~ 8:32 ]
[ 9:57 ~ 10:05 ]
[ 25:45 ~ 25:58 ]
[ 27:54 ~ 28:05 ]*


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> I like the chromaticism in this one. It foreshadows his own Haydn quartets:
> *[ 1:43 ~ 1:52 ]
> [ 3:17 ~ 3:38 ]
> [ 7:48 ~ 7:53 ]
> [ 8:24 ~ 8:32 ]
> [ 9:57 ~ 10:05 ]
> [ 25:45 ~ 25:58 ]
> [ 27:54 ~ 28:05 ]*


You are looking at Mozart from the eyes of a musical specialist/theory nerd.

These subtleties, if they don't translate into listening pleasure, don't worry me much. Admittedly, K334 isn't one of my favourite Divertimentos by the man.


----------



## Ethereality

RogerWaters said:


> You are looking at Mozart from the eyes of a musical specialist/theory nerd.


What? That's not even remotely true.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> He isn't boring: however you have to do a bit of digging to find the right pieces. Undoubtedly, Mozart wrote a lot of 'pleasant' sounding music for 18th-century aristocratic patrons and/or affections, hot off the heels of the flowery Rococco movement. Unlike a Beethoven, for instance, I think the difference between profound Mozart and other Mozart can be quite subtle. At any rate it has taken me sometime to differentiate and I want to suggest this may be similar for others.
> 
> Unlike some, I don't think later always = better. For instance, I find the early* Divertimenti K136-138* to be exquisit works, however thrashed some isolated movements therein. The recording by Koopman (including also the wonderful *Divertimento K251*) is exemplary for bringing out the seemingly-effortless beauty of these works.
> 
> The* Violin Concertos* (Barati's recording) and the first *Flute Concerto K313* (Krabatsch's recording) are other earlyish favourites. I also love Savall's collection which includes *Serenade K239*, and especially *Notturno K286* (along with the later 'Eine Kleine Nachtmusik'). Period performance is a must for me with these earlier works - transparency, loftiness and grace are expressions that come to mind. Often profundity in music requires heaviness/sadness/'weight' - with these works Mozart seems to be the composer who reachers the sublime but via a different route - and that is a discovery in-itself.
> 
> Mid-to-late Mozart strikes me as a bit more 'intellectual'. Must-haves for me are as follows:
> 
> - *Clarinet Concerto K622* (Dieltjens' recording/HIP)
> - *Clarinet Quintet K581* (Arcanto Quartet + someone else)
> - *Piano Concertos 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 27* (Serkin; Szell recording for VIGOR and PRESENCE)
> - *The Piano Quartets* (Beaux Arts Trio with some other guy)
> - *Requiem K626*
> - *'Haydn' String Quartets* (Quatuor Mosaiques/HIP is a MUST for me here, and maybe you)
> - *Last 4 String Quintets* (Hausmusik/HIP)
> - *Last 4 Symphonies* (Walter recording, again for vigor and presence - Rosen reports that Mozart always wanted more low end in his orchestras, and this certainly delivers. Symphony 40 is epic).
> 
> The following are well-regarded later works, for which I don't care much. They seem to be well-crafted but 'floofy'.
> 
> - String Trio K563 (some nice movements, particularly the 1st, but altogether too long with too little in the way of emotional depth/contrasts to retain my engagement for some 45-50 minutes)
> - Oboe Quartet K370
> - Horn Quintet K407
> - Piano & Wind Quintet 452
> - Horn Concertos
> 
> *When it comes to his operas, I steer well clear. Light entertainment for a different and easily-excitable era, it seems to me. Too many wigs and powdered 18th-century faces*.


The comment does not say much about Mozart operas but it says quite a bit about your superficial understanding of them.


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> The comment does not say much about Mozart operas but it says quite a bit about your superficial understanding of them.


We can add you to the list of insecure people who can't handle other people not liking every 'major' work from their revered god-composers, then, it seems.

I offered a perspective for someone who might find Mozart too light, or otherwise unengaging - to possibly assist them in getting into Mozart. For such a person (I was one of them at one stage), I recommended avoiding the operas and not equating Mozart with these works. I certainly don't find them to be among his most sublime works - what with all that _shrieking_ and mannered gesticulating that passed for singing/acting in the 18th century! OP might be like me. Then again, he might not.


----------



## RogerWaters

Ethereality said:


> What? That's not even remotely true.


Get back to me when regular listeners of Mozart document, minute by minute, the use of dissonance and other formal devices in the score in order to enjoy the music!

I'm not making fun of this, and it is genuinely interesting, I just don't think it's the way others/most people enjoy Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> We can add you to the list of insecure people who can't handle other people not liking every 'major' work from their revered god-composers, then, it seems.
> 
> I offered a perspective for someone who might find Mozart too light, or otherwise unengaging - to possibly assist them in getting into Mozart. For such a person (I was one of them at one stage), I recommended avoiding the operas and not equating Mozart with these works. I certainly don't find them to be among his most sublime works - what with all that _shrieking_ and mannered gesticulating that passed for singing/acting in the 18th century! OP might be like me. Then again, he might not.


. Why on earth should I be insecure about statements that are so ill thought out / blatantly untrue? . Talking about shrieking and that passed for singing in the 18th century? I wonder whether you have ever actually heard any of the operas? If so you have a very strange idea of singing. Maybe your idea of singing is the bellowing that followed later? No my dear friend, I am not going to get insecure at all about your remarks as they are incomprehensible to me and bare no relation to reality. Please get a reality check. Take a Beechams pill.


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> . Why on earth should I be insecure about statements that are so ill thought out / blatantly untrue?.


Good question! I would change the 'ill thought out' to 'just one person's opinion', though.

Are you implying that if I only furrowed my brows and _thought_ more about Mozart operas, I would as a result like them?!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Getting back to the topic. Mozart is my problem composer: regarded as a great, but I do find most of his pieces on the boring side - my mind tends to wander. It's rare in his works that there is not a movement where I lose interest - even if another movement was lovely.

Where I am making some headway with Mozart is by listening to the early piano concertos. (I recently bought the Perahia set for 199 Koruna on Supraphon!) I have enjoyed 1-3, and am ploughing on. My hope is that if I follow these through I will gain more appreciation for the later works, where most of those sound too "smooth" for me - that's the best I can explain my problem with them.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Getting back to the topic. Mozart is my problem composer: regarded as a great, but I do find most of his pieces on the boring side - my mind tends to wander. It's rare in his works that there is not a movement where I lose interest - even if another movement was lovely.
> 
> Where I am making some headway with Mozart is by listening to the early piano concertos. (I recently bought the Perahia set for 199 Koruna on Supraphon!) I have enjoyed 1-3, and am ploughing on. My hope is that if I follow these through I will gain more appreciation for the later works, where most of those sound too "smooth" for me - that's the best I can explain my problem with them.


Try Bruno Walter's rendition of Symphony No. 40.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> Try Bruno Walter's rendition of Symphony No. 40.


Number 40 is one of my favourites among his symphonies.
Number 25 is another I like. (I got told off once for seeming to prefer his minor key works - as though that was unacceptable.)


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Number 40 is one of my favourites among his symphonies.
> Number 25 is another I like. (I got told off once for seeming to prefer his minor key works - as though that was unacceptable.)


I'm similar to some degree. If Mozart had written more minor key works I would like him even more. Walter's #40 is especially vigorous and heavy.


----------



## SyphiliSSchubert

Mozart is one of the most amazing composers for the voice IMO. He has a huge output of Operas but also of Sacred Music. I love his piano concertos, his late symphonies, but what has been really under my radar recently are his sacred vocal works.


----------



## Taggart

Please concentrate on the OP and not indulge in petty spats.

A number of purely personal posts have been removed.


----------



## tdc

For me when I first listened to Cossi fan tutte and Le Nozze di Figaro, I felt overwhelmed, as though I was listening to music created by a god-like being.


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> For me when I first listened to Cossi fan tutte and Le Nozze di Figaro, I felt overwhelmed, as though I was listening to music created by a god-like being.


While Mozart the man was far from a god-like being I admit that his music has that effect. Sir George Solti says in his autobiography that although he is not religious, when he listens to Mozart he knows there must be a God.


----------



## JAS

DavidA said:


> While Mozart the man was far from a god-like being I admit that his music has that effect. Sir George Solti says in his autobiography that although he is not religious, when he listens to Mozart he knows there must be a God.


That first part might depend on what mythological tradition you are following.


----------



## SanAntone

In every art form there are a handful of acknowledged masters. In jazz there's Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane - we all have our favorites, but these names loom larger than the others. In classical music there's Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms.

Inevitably there are a few individuals who wish to distinguish themselves by speaking out against one of these giant talents, creating an aura around themselves which they hope proves their independence from the masses and indicating a superior power of discernment. There's will always be someone claiming Handel is greater than Bach; Beethoven is overrated - and alas, Mozart is boring.

It is a common phenomenon and tells us much about the speaker and nothing new about the intended target.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> In every art form there are a handful of acknowledged masters. In jazz there's Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane - we all have our favorites, but these names loom larger than the others. In classical music there's Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms.
> 
> Inevitably there are a few individuals who wish to distinguish themselves by speaking out against one of these giant talents, creating an aura around themselves which they hope proves their independence from the masses and indicating a superior power of discernment. There's will always be someone claiming Handel is greater than Bach; Beethoven is overrated - and alas, Mozart is boring.
> 
> It is a common phenomenon and tells us much about the speaker and nothing new about the intended target.


It's not possible for you to consider someone claiming that Handel is greater than Mozart without such cynicism?


----------



## SanAntone

janxharris said:


> It's not possible for you to consider someone claiming that Handel is greater than Mozart without such cynicism?


My point, is that while it is certainly acceptable for someone to express an opinion that they do not enjoy the music of composer X. It is quite another thing to attempt to prove, and to do this to an admitted admirer, that composer X is "overrated," or inferior to composer Y.

We cannot help having favorites, but there is no way to prove that Handel is greater than Mozart, etc., and it only serves to spoil a conversation among Mozart admirers to continually drop turds in the punch bowl, so to speak.

To his credt the OP asked the question and solicited comments from Mozart admirers to possibly give him reasons to re-listen to Mozart and hopefully come to a different opinion.

However, the thread quickly descended into a group of Mozart detractors challenging the admirers for doing only what they were asked to do in the OP.

I am not being cynical, I don't think.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Eclectic Al said:


> Number 40 is one of my favourites among his symphonies.
> Number 25 is another I like. (I got told off once for seeming to prefer his minor key works - as though that was unacceptable.)


There's obv.nothing remotely unacceptable about that so I'm sorry if that was your experience. That said, I as a dyed-in-the-wool Mozart nut *would* disagree (though certainly without any kind of telling-off) with the suggestion one sometimes comes across that Mozart's minor key works are objectively more profound. Maybe that's what the other guy thought you were saying?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Animal the Drummer said:


> There's obv.nothing remotely unacceptable about that so I'm sorry if that was your experience. That said, I as a dyed-in-the-wool Mozart nut *would* disagree (though certainly without any kind of telling-off) with the suggestion one sometimes comes across that Mozart's minor key works are objectively more profound. Maybe that's what the other guy thought you were saying?


I can't really recall, and I didn't really mind too much. I think it was that I might be a bit Sturm und Drang in my tastes, looking for pieces with plenty of obvious drama. I don't know if that's true or not - maybe.

My personal musical journey has been one with the classical period as the gap in the middle: liking earlier and later music, but not really appreciating Mozart, Haydn, early Beethoven, for example. However, I'm now very partial to Haydn and early Beethoven, so maybe I will close the gap with Mozart in the end. I think my current approach is to target him from the early end, and (as I noted elsewhere) the early piano concertos are going quite well.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> It's not possible for you to consider someone claiming that Handel is greater than Mozart without such cynicism?


Beethoven reckoned that Handel was greater than Mozart. But then we don't quite know how much of each he knew.


----------



## Marc

tdc said:


> For me when I first listened to Cossi fan tutte and Le Nozze di Figaro, I felt overwhelmed, as though I was listening to music created by a god-like being.


At first I clicked on 'like' when I read your post, but then I suddenly realized that I completely had the opposite overwhelming feeling: when I first listened to Mozart operas, I felt as though I was listening to music created by an utter human being. 
(This does not mean that I _dislike_ your post though... .)


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> I'm similar to some degree. If Mozart had written more minor key works I would like him even more. Walter's #40 is especially vigorous and heavy.






Charles Hazlewood: "Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief."

*[ 2:54 ~ 3:24 ]
[ 5:39 ~ 6:41 ]
[ 7:30 ~ 8:00 ]
[ 13:13 ~ 15:27 ]*





Neoclassicism
"...showed an affinity for the key of C major. Many pages of neoclassic music were prime examples of the term "white music" coined during this period. The composers of the Neoclassic period focused their attention on elegance of style and purity of taste. In *exalting the how over the what*, they were led to the classical virtues of order, discipline, balance, and proportion. ..."

*[ 2:30 ]*





gloria: the creeping chromaticism at 3:50
credo: listen for the "drama" that starts in "et incarnatus est" ( 7:18 ), escalates in "crucifixus" ( 8:43 ) and climaxes in "sub pontio pilato" ( 9:21 ) . Notice this sort of dark chromaticism coming back at 11:30
agnus dei: 20:30 see if you can feel the "dark clouds" gradually lifting





*[ 2:30 ]*


----------



## Marc

A sad heart, bereft of love, longing for death, composed in E flat Major by the utterly human  W.A. Mozart.
("Porgi amor" from _Le Nozze di Figaro_, sung by Lucia Popp.)


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> I like the chromaticism in this one. It foreshadows his own Haydn quartets:
> *[ 1:43 ~ 1:52 ]
> [ 3:17 ~ 3:38 ]
> [ 7:48 ~ 7:53 ]
> [ 8:24 ~ 8:32 ]
> [ 9:57 ~ 10:05 ]
> [ 25:45 ~ 25:58 ]
> [ 27:54 ~ 28:05 ]*


Aside from particular form, I also enjoy his thematic Haydnesque modulations for the originality he also tries to bestow them, ie. 11:30






I love how he moves the flow of melody at *5:29* above.

More modulation at 3:25:


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> "Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief."


I find this kind of contrast to be much more evident in some other composers, particularly Beethoven.

Mozart was obviously writing in a certain time period home to certain cultural/artistic pressures - post Roccoco, Classical - where the emphasis was on clarity, balance, and cheerfulness. If that's true, then it is not absurd to think Mozart was possibly constrained by these pressures too, at least sometimes. Obviously he worked within them to produce brilliant works of art, but I don't think its reasonble to deny that his music _tends _to be on the lighter side, emotionally speaking.


----------



## Ethereality

I understand what hammeredklavier is saying. With Mozart I feel his emotional intelligence is more complex, as somehow he's able to show us music that is both joyous and painful in expression, having both the keys to darkness and light at the same time. Dual expressivities and of all varieties. Beethoven is quite emotional but instead of being layered with humanistic holism the emotions I associate with him feel usually broad to one extreme with powerful moving melodies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> I find this kind of contrast to be much more evident in some other composers, particularly Beethoven.


I acknowledge Beethoven's merits in expanded use of dynamics and form, but his use of contrast isn't necessarily more evident than Mozart's to me. In those examples of missa breves, Mozart is so dynamic in terms of change of character, it almost feels like bipolar disorder. And still, all the ideas connect with flow. I don't find equivalents like them in Beethoven. To me, Beethoven is more about dynamics (loudness).

"I know of no other composer as fundamentally transformed while writing in minor keys, and none except Gesualdo and Wagner, who made such unforgettable use of chromaticism. (For Wagner himself, Mozart was 'the great Chromatiker'.)"
< Music, Sense and Nonsense: Collected Essays and Lectures , By Alfred Brendel , Page 14>

*[ 4:10 ]*




^compare this with the first movement of Schubert's trout quintet for example.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> When it comes to his operas, I steer well clear. Light entertainment for a different and easily-excitable era, it seems to me. Too many wigs and powdered 18th-century faces.







*[ 26:00 ~ 32:30 ]*
*[ 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 ]*
*[ 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 ]*
*[ 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 ]*



RogerWaters said:


> constrained by these pressures too, at least sometimes. Obviously he worked within them to produce brilliant works of art, but I don't think its reasonble to deny that his music _tends _to be on the lighter side, emotionally speaking.


I don't see how Mozart was more constrained by the standards of his time than Beethoven was by his. By your logic, is it reasonable to deny that ( if you look through the scores of the Choral fantasie or the pastoral symphony, and the use of accidentals and stuff ) Beethoven was sort of "overwhelmed" by his own contemporaries? After all it was Beethoven who said that Spohr was too dissonant and the pleasure in his music is marred by chromatic melody, and Weber's Euryanthe was an accumulation of diminished sevenths, (told Schindler that they were all "little backdoors"). I know Brahms also commented on this aspect about Beethoven.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

RogerWaters said:


> I find this kind of contrast to be much more evident in some other composers, particularly Beethoven.
> 
> Mozart was obviously writing in a certain time period home to certain cultural/artistic pressures - post Roccoco, Classical - where the emphasis was on clarity, balance, and cheerfulness. If that's true, then it is not absurd to think Mozart was possibly constrained by these pressures too, at least sometimes. Obviously he worked within them to produce brilliant works of art, but I don't think its reasonble to deny that his music _tends _to be on the lighter side, emotionally speaking.


It is, and I do. With respect, to suggest that is to judge a book by its cover.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> I find this kind of contrast to be much more evident in some other composers, particularly Beethoven.
> 
> Mozart was obviously writing in a certain time period home to certain cultural/artistic pressures - post Roccoco, Classical - where the emphasis was on clarity, balance, and cheerfulness. If that's true, then it is not absurd to think Mozart was possibly constrained by these pressures too, at least sometimes. Obviously he worked within them to produce brilliant works of art, but I don't think its reasonble to deny that his music _tends _to be on the lighter side, emotionally speaking.


I think this shows a very narrow view of human emotions. Like human emotions are only shown heart on sleeve. Anyone who fails to see the huge range of human emotions expressed in Mozart's mature operas is missing something


----------



## poconoron

DavidA said:


> I think this shows a very narrow view of human emotions. Like human emotions are only shown heart on sleeve. Anyone who fails to see the huge range of human emotions expressed in Mozart's mature operas is missing something


Or in the piano concertos...................


----------



## SanAntone

RogerWaters said:


> I find this kind of contrast to be much more evident in some other composers, particularly Beethoven.
> 
> Mozart was obviously writing in a certain time period home to certain cultural/artistic pressures - post Roccoco, Classical - where the emphasis was on clarity, balance, and cheerfulness. If that's true, then it is not absurd to think Mozart was possibly constrained by these pressures too, at least sometimes. Obviously he worked within them to produce brilliant works of art, but I don't think its reasonble to deny that his music _tends _to be *on the lighter side, emotionally speaking*.


Have you actually heard the operas? _Don Giovanni_, for instance? Nothing "on the lighter "side there. Nor in the _Requiem_, the _Great C Minor Mass_, nor as could be cited in countless other examples.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean, compare the eroica slow movement with maurerische trauermusik (which I posted previously), see how much Beethoven is about plain " loudness"?


You're missing a lot of the music if you think a lot of the slow movement of the Eroica is about plain loudness.


----------



## hammeredklavier

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You're missing a lot of the music if you think a lot of the slow movement of the Eroica is about plain loudness.


I admit I was being a little unfair about Beethoven in my last post. But I also have bad memories of seeing a countless number of similar "Beethoven-is-Better" arguments in various places. Regardless of whether I like Beethoven, I do consider him a genius artist and I respect anyone who prefers Beethoven's concertos and Fidelio over anything Mozart wrote, I just don't think its fair it's always the Beethoven enthusiasts who nitpick Mozart, about how superficial his music is.



Machiavel said:


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


----------



## poconoron

Well:

Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Chopin, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, George Szell, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Schubert, Saint Saens, Rossini, Artur Schnabel, Schumann, Isaac Stern, Aaron Copeland, Edvard Grieg, George Solti, Arnold Schoenberg, Charles Gounod, Thomas Beecham, Leonard Bernstein and many others I can't think of right now adored Mozart and found him "not boring" in the least.

I think I am in good company with that group!


----------



## Xisten267

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You're missing a lot of the music if you think a lot of the slow movement of the Eroica is about plain loudness.


Member hammeredklavier loves to attack Beethoven, it seems to be his favorite hobby. I suggest you to listen to him when he talks about his Mozart but ignore him when the subject is the master of Bonn.

Eroica being about plain loudness my @$$.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Member hammeredklavier loves to attack Beethoven, it seems to be his favorite hobby.


It's not. I apologize about that post if you found it offensive, as I said, I admit I was being harsh towards Beethoven. If you look at my previous posts you'll see that I praised Beethoven's expansive use of form.
Btw, I haven't seen you very often recently in the main forum, Mr. Allerius. How are you doing these days?


----------



## RogerWaters

SanAntone said:


> Have you actually heard the operas? _Don Giovanni_, for instance? Nothing "on the lighter "side there. Nor in the _Requiem_, the _Great C Minor Mass_, nor as could be cited in countless other examples.


Of course I have. Note I said 'tends to be'. _Of course_ there are exceptions:

- Requiem (duh!)
- Piano Concertos 20 and 24

But even many of his minor key works are still quite measured, restrained and 'light' in the sense not of light-weight, but remaining fully 'in command' of dionysian impulses, for lack of better terminology. I.e.:

- Piano Quintet 1
- String Quintet 4

There are shades and contrasts all through the music, but I contest there is a 'politeness' about it all. If I had to guess I'd say Mozart's music is so rich BECAUSE of the need to always retain classical control - this made Mozart's use of darker contrasts and sadness extremely subtle and far more interwoven into the music at each moment. I also think that Mozart's rythms add to the light - the music often remains spritely and dance-like even in darker moments unlike, say, the Funeral March and Beethoven's late quartets which have dirge-like moments or Bach's sometimes methodical, profound unfolding of heavenly clockwork in the fugues.

Compared to, say, Bach, much Beethoven, Brahms, Buxtehude, Stravinsky (early), Bruckner, Sibelius... not to mention other kinds of music, even Mozart's minor peices are comparitvely 'ligther' works from my current perspective. This is not a criticism. Mozart is amazing and probably in my top 4 after Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.

Don Giovanni does not strike me as profound. I'm not saying it isn't, i'm saying _I don't have that reaction to it_ - possibly also the OP which is why I suggested other works.


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> I think this shows a very narrow view of human emotions. Like human emotions are only shown heart on sleeve. Anyone who fails to see the huge range of human emotions expressed in Mozart's mature operas is missing something


I think anyone who fails to feel the profound weight and impact of Apocalypse Now the movie is missing something. That is life. These things are not objective. You can try to 'other' me by calling into quesiton my capacity for emotional perception, but I think that apporach is rediculous.


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't see how Mozart was more constrained by the standards of his time than Beethoven was by his.


I'm sure you know much more about each composers' respective biographies, but surely Beethoven's well-known reputation as a highly disagreeable character who took music from the classical period to the romantic says it all on this question...?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

It seems a lot of Mozart defenders are taking this as a clear dichotomy and citing Mozart's best music as examples of why he is not boring. I haven't seen anyone make the plain statement that Mozart is boring. Mozart's best music is as exciting as any I've heard but he also produced a lot of music that is, to these ears, verging on boring. I can say the same about other top composers. For example, I love some of Haydn's music, especially later symphonies and string quartets, but I find much of his music uninteresting. He, like Mozart, wrote a lot of music and much of it was commissioned and not always inspired.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> I'm sure you know much more about each composers' respective biographies, but surely Beethoven's well-known reputation as a highly disagreeable character who took music from the classical period to the romantic says it all on this question...?


Take a look at my previous posts: 
#32 https://www.talkclassical.com/67746-mozart-boring-he-3.html#post1918001
#35 https://www.talkclassical.com/67746-mozart-boring-he-3.html#post1918050


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> I think anyone who fails to feel the profound weight and impact of Apocalypse Now the movie is missing something. That is life. These things are not objective. You can try to 'other' me by calling into quesiton my capacity for emotional perception, but I think that apporach is rediculous.


If many people "get it" then it's get-able. The folks who don't get it are on their own and they have no effect upon the goal of saving time by the objective ranking of works.


----------



## RogerWaters

Luchesi said:


> If many people "get it" then it's get-able. *The folks who don't get it are on their own* and they have no effect upon the goal of saving time with the objective ranking of works.


From a purely quantitiative perspective, the folks who get it are actually the ones on their own! Most people currently alive don't find Mozart's operas or his other music sublime! Most people don't give a damn about Mozart.

I've no idea what you mean by the rest of your comment.


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> From a purely quantitiative perspective, the folks who get it are actually the ones on their own! Most people currently alive don't find Mozart's operas or his other music sublime! Most people don't give a damn about Mozart.
> 
> I've no idea what you mean by the rest of your comment.


That's sad but true.


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at my previous posts:
> #32 https://www.talkclassical.com/67746-mozart-boring-he-3.html#post1918001
> #35 https://www.talkclassical.com/67746-mozart-boring-he-3.html#post1918050


So you seem to indicate, in your previous posts, that Mozart made some formal advancements over his contemporaries. Fine. But that doesn't mean Mozart wasn't more constrained by fashion than Beethoven was! Again, I thought it was very common knowledge that Beethoven pushed the boundaries much more than Mozart. I feel like i'm having to scrap about points that are otherwise (outside of this thread) fairly obvious: that Mozart's music is comparatively lighter (but no less 'good') than some other great composers, and now that Beethoven was less constrained by fashions than Mozart!


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Again, I thought it was very common knowledge that Beethoven pushed the boundaries much more than Mozart.


Johannes Brahms, 1896:
"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
( Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
, Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 )


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Johannes Brahms, 1896:
> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
> ( Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
> , Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 )


That's interesting, thanks, but Brahms was either biased (for all the reasons we've heard about) or at a disadvanatage because of unintelligent performances he'd attended or still just too shocked by Beethoven's newness (compared to the much more comfortable Haydn and Mozart). Or it might be merely because he was writing this down and knew it would either add to or detract from his image.

Over time, fewer and fewer competent listeners found LvB vulgar or bombastic and so his worth went up, BUT it was there all the time!


----------



## poconoron

Luchesi said:


> That's interesting, thanks, but Brahms was either biased (for all the reasons we've heard about) or at a disadvanatage because of unintelligent performances he'd attended or still just too shocked by Beethoven's newness (compared to the much more comfortable Haydn and Mozart). Or it might be merely because he was writing this down and knew it would either add to or detract from his image.
> 
> Over time, fewer and fewer competent listeners found LvB vulgar or bombastic and so his worth went up, BUT it was there all the time!


Or, more likely, he actually believed in what he stated!


----------



## trazom

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It seems a lot of Mozart defenders are taking this as a clear dichotomy and citing Mozart's best music as examples of why he is not boring .... He, like Mozart, wrote a lot of music and much of it was commissioned and not always inspired.


I don't see what's particularly remarkable about these observations. People don't normally recommend the music of composers on the strength of their worst music, do they? Do people get up in arms when Beethoven fans recommend his symphonies and quartets and sonatas by citing the uninspired patriotic cantatas, flute sonatas, and Scottish songs he wrote? I'm sure no one was attempting to argue that every single piece Mozart ever wrote was inspired, they were presenting evidence to counter the OP's assertion that "the large body"(implying most) of what Mozart wrote was "superbly dull" and "insipid," by recommending pieces they likely haven't heard, which I am guessing is quite a bit, since I don't recall ever reading such a reductive and ignorant description of Mozart's entire catalogue by someone who was actually familiar with most of it.


----------



## Luchesi

poconoron said:


> Or, more likely, he actually believed in what he stated!


I can understand him believing that LvB was in some works "much weaker" than Mozart. But these are probably aspects which we care less about today, such as 'purity' (pure sounding?), so much symmetry, gallant allusions, 'grace', poignant simplicity, good taste, on and on.


----------



## trazom

Luchesi said:


> I can understand him believing that LvB was in some works "much weaker" than Mozart. But these are probably aspects which we care less about today, such as '*purity*' (pure sounding?), so much *symmetry, gallant allusions, 'grace', poignant simplicity, good taste, on and on.*


None of these are things Brahms mentions in the letter posted though.


----------



## Luchesi

trazom said:


> None of these are things Brahms mentions in the letter posted though.


Yes, none of those. But comparing the last 3 of Mozart with LvB's First or Second? It seems to me that Mozart had so much more experience composing symphonies in this comparison. It isn't a fair point to make.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> I think anyone who fails to feel the profound weight and impact of Apocalypse Now the movie is missing something. That is life. These things are not objective. You can try to 'other' me by calling into quesiton my capacity for emotional perception, but I think that apporach is rediculous.


Well I think comparing notes out with Apocalypse Now is beyond the pale :lol:


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> From a purely quantitiative perspective, the folks who get it are actually the ones on their own! Most people currently alive don't find Mozart's operas or his other music sublime! Most people don't give a damn about Mozart.
> 
> I've no idea what you mean by the rest of your comment.


As most people alive do not get classical music at all and do not give a damn about it your statement is utterly pointless.


----------



## trazom

poconoron said:


> Or, more likely, he actually believed in what he stated!


No, that is not true. It is simply unfathomable that Brahms could prefer those Mozart pieces. He must have felt pressured to write that, or he heard "unintelligent performances" of Beethoven's first two symphonies. He could have been in shock and suffering PTSD from their vulgarity and newness...despite his being one year away from death and already well acquainted with the works of Wagner, Liszt, and Schumann.

All we can know for certain is that Brahms could not have meant what he said. We at TC know better.


----------



## DavidA

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It seems a lot of Mozart defenders are taking this as a clear dichotomy and citing Mozart's best music as examples of why he is not boring. I haven't seen anyone make the plain statement that Mozart is boring. Mozart's best music is as exciting as any I've heard but he also produced a lot of music that is, to these ears, verging on boring. I can say the same about other top composers. For example, I love some of Haydn's music, especially later symphonies and string quartets, but I find much of his music uninteresting. He, like Mozart, wrote a lot of music and much of it was commissioned and not always inspired.


There is a lot ofMozart's early musicI don't listen to, not because it is particularly boring, but because the later music is so much more developed and is of stupendous genius. Like flowers. Do we wish to see a flower in the bud stage or in full bloom? And as I say some of the divertimentos were meant to act as background music not as concert pieces but can still be listened to with pleasure because f their genius. By those who appreciate genius, of course!


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

trazom said:


> I'm sure no one was attempting to argue that every single piece Mozart ever wrote was inspired, they were presenting evidence to counter the OP's assertion that "the large body"(implying most) of what Mozart wrote was "superbly dull" and "insipid," by recommending pieces they likely haven't heard, which I am guessing is quite a bit, since I don't recall ever reading such a reductive and ignorant description of Mozart's entire catalogue by someone who was actually familiar with most of it.


I'll concede that. Even if it is a matter of opinion, it's not very astute to generalize over a large portion of an artist's work based on limited knowledge/exposure. A lot of the "lower-tier" or less mature works people have referred back to in this thread all sound like a "you heard 'em once you heard 'em all" to me, but so many genres of music sounds like that on a superficial level before you really delve into it. I still can't say they really do it for me, but the thread has given me a lot of food for thought (25+ pages in fact, though I could do without reading the obnoxious tit for tats some people did to each other in this thread, c'mon guys) to make a better informed opinion down the line.


----------



## SanAntone

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'll concede that. Even if it is a matter of opinion, it's not very astute to generalize over a large portion of an artist's work based on limited knowledge/exposure. A lot of the "lower-tier" or less mature works people have referred back to in this thread all sound like a "you heard 'em once you heard 'em all" to me, but so many genres of music sounds like that on a superficial level before you really delve into it. I still can't say they really do it for me, but the thread has given me a lot of food for thought (25+ pages in fact, though I could do without reading the obnoxious tit for tats some people did to each other in this thread, c'mon guys) to make a better informed opinion down the line.


Did you know for a long time I thought your screen name was "GucciManeIsTheNewWeber" I didn't notice that the "n" had folded to the next line underneath. Big difference between Weber and Webern.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

trazom said:


> I don't see what's particularly remarkable about these observations. People don't normally recommend the music of composers on the strength of their worst music, do they? Do people get up in arms when Beethoven fans recommend his symphonies and quartets and sonatas by citing the uninspired patriotic cantatas, flute sonatas, and Scottish songs he wrote? I'm sure no one was attempting to argue that every single piece Mozart ever wrote was inspired, they were presenting evidence to counter the OP's assertion that "the large body"(implying most) of what Mozart wrote was "superbly dull" and "insipid," by recommending pieces they likely haven't heard, which I am guessing is quite a bit, since I don't recall ever reading such a reductive and ignorant description of Mozart's entire catalogue by someone who was actually familiar with most of it.


Well, I think that a large body of Mozart's music is if not dull, at least only interesting to warrant a single hearing. Much more so than Beethoven's, to use your composer reference. If you prepare exciting/boring ratios for both composers, Mozart's would be a lot lower.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> There is a lot ofMozart's early musicI don't listen to, not because it is particularly boring, but because the later music is so much more developed and is of stupendous genius. Like flowers. Do we wish to see a flower in the bud stage or in full bloom? And as I say some of the divertimentos were meant to act as background music not as concert pieces but can still be listened to with pleasure because f their genius. By those who appreciate genius, of course!


"By those who appreciate genius, of course!"

For musicians it's so interesting to analyze how the later works came from early works. 'Nothing boring about it. It's a unique case study. And then do it with Beethoven!

Bach's developmental path is more difficult to learn about.

These guys devoted so much of their time and industry to get to their final decade of works that it's time well spent for us, but if you can't read a score what do you do? Perhaps just listening, over and over (since we're now able to do that, ...for good or bad).


----------



## Luchesi

trazom said:


> No, that is not true. It is simply unfathomable that Brahms could prefer those Mozart pieces. He must have felt pressured to write that, or he heard "unintelligent performances" of Beethoven's first two symphonies. He could have been in shock and suffering PTSD from their vulgarity and newness...despite his being one year away from death and already well acquainted with the works of Wagner, Liszt, and Schumann.
> 
> All we can know for certain is that Brahms could not have meant what he said. We at TC know better.


I think he was writing for people who wanted to read what he wrote. Toot your own horn and keep it accessible to the cretins.

I'm impressed that Brahms gave us so much high quality music, but I hold onto the perspective that he matured long after LvB was dead and gone, and yet he would write this. It's an interesting story from CM, his relationship with the ghost of Beethoven. Love/jealousy/nit picking/exaggerations - all very human from such a passionate icon.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Johannes Brahms, 1896:
> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."
> ( Composers On Music: Eight Centuries of Writings
> , Josiah Fisk, Jeff Nichols, Technical Group Leader High Performance Computational Chemistry Group Jeff Nichols | p.134~135 )





Luchesi said:


> That's interesting, thanks, but Brahms was either biased (for all the reasons we've heard about) or at a disadvanatage because of unintelligent performances he'd attended or still just too shocked by Beethoven's newness (compared to the much more comfortable Haydn and Mozart). Or it might be merely because he was writing this down and knew it would either add to or detract from his image.
> 
> Over time, fewer and fewer competent listeners found LvB vulgar or bombastic and so his worth went up, BUT it was there all the time!





Luchesi said:


> I can understand him believing that LvB was in some works "much weaker" than Mozart. But these are probably aspects which we care less about today, such as 'purity' (pure sounding?), so much symmetry, gallant allusions, 'grace', poignant simplicity, good taste, on and on.





trazom said:


> No, that is not true. It is simply unfathomable that Brahms could prefer those Mozart pieces. He must have felt pressured to write that, or he heard "unintelligent performances" of Beethoven's first two symphonies. He could have been in shock and suffering PTSD from their vulgarity and newness...despite his being one year away from death and already well acquainted with the works of Wagner, Liszt, and Schumann.
> 
> *All we can know for certain is that Brahms could not have meant what he said. We at TC know better.*


Is your entire post sarcastic?

All these posts are off the mark, IMO. Brahms knew what he was about and simply thought highly of the music of Bach and Mozart. Maybe Beethoven's shadow was something he acutely felt the need to get out from under - but there is no reason to think that he had other than musical reasons for writing what he did regarding Mozart and Bach.



poconoron said:


> Or, more likely, he actually believed in what he stated!


Yep.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Maybe Beethoven's shadow was something he acutely felt the need to get out from under - but there is no reason to think that he had other than musical reasons for writing what he did regarding Mozart and Bach.


I agree. Berlioz was the opposite of Brahms in that respect:
View attachment 130858

"I have the strong impression that Berlioz envied Mozart's professional skill as a musician, and was conscious of his own inferiority. Despite the apologetic discourse of Barzun and other Berliozians, his shortcomings in harmony, counterpoint and formal organization are unmistakable even in his mature works. How could he, who grew up at La Côte-Saint-André isolated from any serious music-making until the age of 18, receiving only a rudimentary musical education in his childhood and youth, never mastering an instrument, not encouraged by his family at any stage to understake a musical career, compete with the child of Salzburg, son of a highly skilled musician who devoted his life to his son's musical upbringing and who took him from early childhood all around Europe to meet the greatest masters of his day? Berlioz must have felt this difference, and his often arrogant tone in discussing Mozart's music seems barely to mask a deep-rooted sense of insecurity about his musical abilities. No one more than Mozart could embody for Berlioz the ideal of professional musicianship, so far out of his reach, and thus he remains the ultimate reminder of his shortcomings, and thus a permanent source of irritation. It is this recognition of Mozart's superior mastery of compositional skills that lies behind Berlioz's choice of words: 'this unfailing beauty, always serene and self-assured'. Beethoven, of course, was a perfect musician too, but he had to work hard for it, while for Mozart, the myth had already taken root that his proficiency came with ease. This difference between the two was already evident to Berlioz's generation, and thus Beethoven was conceived as more 'human', and Berlioz could feel closer to him. Gluck, on the other hand, who like Berlioz reached artistic ripeness at a relatively advanced age and whose contrapuntal skills were compared by Handel to those of his cook, was much easier to identify with than the 'enfant prodige' who grew up to become the emblem of perfection."


----------



## Ethereality

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, I think that a large body of Mozart's music is if not dull, at least only interesting to warrant a single hearing. Much more so than Beethoven's, to use your composer reference. If you prepare exciting/boring ratios for both composers, Mozart's would be a lot lower.


Majority of Beethoven's works more interesting than Mozart's? That's unfathomable to me. I do not currently see your reasoning to objectify this and have people naturally understand, when, for instance, tabulating how much money is spent on producing Mozart vs Beethoven concerts and albums overall, not only does Mozart win and get performed by more paid musicians, but all varieties of Mozart's works are more _evenly _performed. ie. since the major exception to this is Beethoven's symphonies, which are more popular than Mozart's, this shows that perhaps *Beethoven's* works have a higher boring-to-exciting ratio, not Mozart's.


----------



## trazom

Luchesi said:


> I think he was writing for people who wanted to read what he wrote. Toot your own horn and keep it accessible to the cretins.


You mean his friends and colleagues like Richard Heuberger or Clara Schumann?



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Well, I think that a large body of Mozart's music is if not dull, at least only interesting to warrant a single hearing. Much more so than Beethoven's, to use your composer reference. If you prepare exciting/boring ratios for both composers, Mozart's would be a lot lower.


And you've heard everything Mozart and Beethoven ever wrote in order to come up with this ratio?



SanAntone said:


> Is your entire post sarcastic?


Yes, and I tried to make it as obvious as possible.


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> Majority of Beethoven's works more interesting than Mozart's? That's unfathomable to me. I do not currently see your reasoning to objectify this and have people naturally understand, when, for instance, tabulating how much money is spent on producing Mozart vs Beethoven concerts and albums overall, not only does Mozart win and get performed by more paid musicians, but all varieties of Mozart's works are more _evenly _performed. ie. since the major exception to this is Beethoven's symphonies, which are more popular than Mozart's, this shows that perhaps *Beethoven's* works have a higher boring-to-exciting ratio, not Mozart's.


Why must we judge a composer by their entire output?

I consider Maurice Duruflé one of my most treasured composers, based primarily on my appreciation of a single work. He only left us 14 numbered works, and there are some nice things there. His _Requiem_, however, is far and away one of the most moving examples of sacred choral music I know and that it is enough for me to hold him in such high esteem.

Considering that both Mozart and Beethoven left us many more masterful works than one, I fail to see the significance of holding those works against them which may not be as great.


----------



## Eclectic Al

SanAntone said:


> Why must we judge a composer by their entire output?
> 
> I consider Maurice Duruflé one of my most treasured composers, based primarily on my appreciation of a single work. He only left us 14 numbered works, and there are some nice things there. His _Requiem_, however, is far and away one of the most moving examples of sacred choral music I know and that it is enough for me to hold him in such high esteem.
> 
> Considering that both Mozart and Beethoven left us many more masterful works than one, I fail to see the significance of holding those works against them which may not be as great.


I agree with your main point here, but I think it often seems to work the other way. That is, because a composer produced great works their fans seem offended (on their behalf) if anyone indicates that some of their output falls below the bar.

This also seems to be a problem mainly with "the greats". If I say that Prokofiev wrote some fine symphonies, but number 2 isn't so hot (and ditto Shostakovich) then not many Prokofiev fans will get too cross. (Fingers crossed.) However, if I suggest that any work by Mozart is not either (i) a work of mature wisdom or (ii) a piece showing remarkable promise for one so young, then the wrath of the believers will come down on me.

In the modern world we have the luxury of being able to explore a vast range of music pretty effortlessly, and spend most of our time (if we wish) listening to the works we like best. We are no longer trapped by a small collection of (fairly expensive LPs) plus the occasional trip to a concert (where the programme may not be particularly to our taste) or listening to the radio (where again the programme may be unpalatable). Your personal musical environment can include a lot of Durufle, even if that's usually his Requiem, and that's great.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Eclectic Al said:


> However, if I suggest that any work by Mozart is not either (i) a work of mature wisdom or (ii) a piece showing remarkable promise for one so young, then the wrath of the believers will come down on me.


With respect, that's overstated and wide of the mark. Such comments from Mozart's critics are not often specific or aimed at specific pieces in this way. Much more often they're sweeping statements which purport to disparage the whole of Mozart's oeuvre and present little or no actual evidence or argument to back up such a view, other than personal reactions to his music presented as statements of the supposedly obvious. Frequently they also appear uninvited in threads whose stated purpose is to celebrate Mozart and his music, in which case they get what they deserve. As a comparison, I've never liked Mahler's music but you won't find me intruding on threads started and maintained by those many who do.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Animal the Drummer said:


> With respect, that's overstated and wide of the mark. Such comments from Mozart's critics are not often specific or aimed at specific pieces in this way. Much more often they're sweeping statements which purport to disparage the whole of Mozart's oeuvre and present little or no actual evidence or argument to back up such a view, other than personal reactions to his music presented as statements of the supposedly obvious. Frequently they also appear uninvited in threads whose stated purpose is to celebrate Mozart and his music, in which case they get what they deserve. As a comparison, I've never liked Mahler's music but you won't find me intruding on threads started and maintained by those many who do.


I agree with your sentiment.
It seems to me that we should always do a couple of things before posting:

(i) consider whether the comment belongs in the context of the thread, having due regard for the OP
(ii) then ........... take a few breaths before pressing that button.

I don't really see the point of posts which are simply designed to provoke (- although I can't claim to be immune from reacting in an ill-judged way sometimes). I guess we should assume (in the first instance) that other posters are sincere - although it does sometimes become clear over time that they are not. Mostly, they are.

In a way the trickiest type of thread is one where someone is genuinely unconvinced of the merits of something, and opens themselves up to being convinced. Those who are already convinced can react badly, when (as is inevitable) the first person points to a cherished work and says that they don't get it. It may be that the correct response is to say "Just move on then, and don't bother those of us who do", but that seems a bit weak, and the thread was set up from the other end of the telescope. After all, to pick up on your point (which I agree with), if a thread is clearly set up as one of these "I don't get X. Convince me." threads, then don't go near it unless you want to engage constructively with someone who is likely to be sceptical of X.

Where I absolutely agree with you is if someone sets up a thread with a very clear remit (such as the Grand Karajan Review thread) then it is just rude to intrude into that thread from an opposed perspective (such as, in that case, if you are just hostile to Karajan or his conducting style).


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> I agree with your sentiment.
> It seems to me that we should always do a couple of things before posting:
> 
> (i) consider whether the comment belongs in the context of the thread, having due regard for the OP
> (ii) then ........... take a few breaths before pressing that button.
> 
> I don't really see the point of posts which are simply designed to provoke (- although I can't claim to be immune from reacting in an ill-judged way sometimes). I guess we should assume (in the first instance) that other posters are sincere - although it does sometimes become clear over time that they are not. Mostly, they are.
> 
> In a way the trickiest type of thread is one where someone is genuinely unconvinced of the merits of something, and opens themselves up to being convinced. Those who are already convinced can react badly, when (as is inevitable) the first person points to a cherished work and says that they don't get it. It may be that the correct response is to say "Just move on then, and don't bother those of us who do", but that seems a bit weak, and the thread was set up from the other end of the telescope. After all, to pick up on your point (which I agree with), if a thread is clearly set up as one of these "I don't get X. Convince me." threads, then don't go near it unless you want to engage constructively with someone who is likely to be sceptical of X.
> 
> Where I absolutely agree with you is if someone sets up a thread with a very clear remit (such as the Grand Karajan Review thread) then it is just rude to intrude into that thread from an opposed perspective (such as, in that case, if you are just hostile to Karajan or his conducting style).


If people feel the need to badmouth Mozart we should hear what they have to say. I don't know what they will say, but if you know what they will say then don't read their posts! if they're somehow disconcerting to you. We wouldn't want that.


----------



## Luchesi

trazom - "You mean his friends and colleagues like Richard Heuberger or Clara Schumann?"

Hopefully they knew his moods. Were they the only ones who were going to read this?


----------



## Ethereality




----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> If people feel the need to badmouth Mozart we should hear what they have to say. I don't know what they will say, but if you know what they will say then don't read their posts! if they're somehow disconcerting to you. We wouldn't want that.


If people want to badmouth note that then it's fine with me. Bit like badmouthing Shakespeare or Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo or Einstein. Mozart's genius is so well established so who cares about someone badmouthing him on TC?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Luchesi said:


> If people feel the need to badmouth Mozart we should hear what they have to say. I don't know what they will say, but if you know what they will say then don't read their posts! if they're somehow disconcerting to you. We wouldn't want that.


Fair enough as long as those sensitive people themselves don't then get upset if they barge into a gathering of Mozart's fans in order to "disconcert" them and find themselves on the receiving end of their own medicine.


----------



## Ethereality

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I admire Bach for organizing that way formally, but I don't think it has anything to do with how one listens and perceives the music. I don't think those things can be picked out and appreciated by ear over such a long term. Also is there any evidence that Bach used matrices in his music? (like Mozart)





hammeredklavier said:


> I often find Ethereality's posts a bit too vague to understand fully because he talks in vague expressions such as "Mozart building foundational complexity from the ground up", without giving examples.





Ethereality said:


> Mozart is constantly expanding these forms in a way that unfolds onto themselves though. Bach in your examples seems to be, again, providing smaller structures and bases for the various territories he wants to mark along the path ie. again, he's balancing the patterns arising from counterpoint, a practical application which is very important, but he doesn't (most certainly) reciprocate from the opposite direction of the whole.


Revisiting the Mozart symphony cycles in particular, here's another one that comes to mind--with the intent being short and specific








DavidA said:


> Anyone who hates Mozart hates music. Period!


I've thought about this more. I don't personally see Mozart needing to be so widely received, as I think he's the most difficult/advanced of the Big 3 (although I speak in bias of favoring Mozart's forms over > Bach's harmonic 'profundity.' When Mozart has a profound harmony it's usually due to his form _necessitating_ that harmony in some logic, not the other way around, although hammeredklavier likes emphasizing weirder, cooler examples.) Wolfgang's pristine beauty in its smaller moments makes his music inescapable to most who hear them, that's where I guess his mainstream love and popularity comes more from, however compared to other composers, that line between 'aesthetic beauty' and 'practical structure' seems to be most blurred with Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^I think another instance where Mozart has really good sense of proportion is the vespers: their idea of recapitulating with minor doxology (_"gloria patri"_) in each of the movements. (Rhythmically they share the common concept: one long (or multiple slurred) note(s) followed a shorter note, "glo-----ri-a...")

dixit dominus ( 2:51 )
confitebor tibi ( 8:14 )
beatus vir ( 13:03 )
laudate pueri ( 16:42 )
laudate dominum ( 20:09 )
magnificat anima ( 27:09 )





dixit dominus ( 2:54 )
confitebor tibi ( 7:27 )
beatus vir ( 12:09 )
laudate pueri ( 15:42 )
laudate dominum ( 19:19 )
magnificat anima ( 24:51 )


----------



## EdwardBast

Eclectic Al said:


> I agree with your main point here, but I think it often seems to work the other way. That is, because a composer produced great works their fans seem offended (on their behalf) if anyone indicates that some of their output falls below the bar.
> 
> This also seems to be a problem mainly with "the greats". *If I say that Prokofiev wrote some fine symphonies, but number 2 isn't so hot *(and ditto Shostakovich) then not many Prokofiev fans will get too cross. (Fingers crossed.) However, if I suggest that any work by Mozart is not either (i) a work of mature wisdom or (ii) a piece showing remarkable promise for one so young, then the wrath of the believers will come down on me.
> 
> In the modern world we have the luxury of being able to explore a vast range of music pretty effortlessly, and spend most of our time (if we wish) listening to the works we like best. We are no longer trapped by a small collection of (fairly expensive LPs) plus the occasional trip to a concert (where the programme may not be particularly to our taste) or listening to the radio (where again the programme may be unpalatable). Your personal musical environment can include a lot of Durufle, even if that's usually his Requiem, and that's great.


A Prokofiev fan would say you're nuts! His Second is magnificent.


----------



## EdwardBast

RogerWaters said:


> I think anyone who fails to feel the profound weight and impact of Apocalypse Now the movie is missing something. That is life. These things are not objective. You can try to 'other' me by calling into quesiton my capacity for emotional perception, but I think that apporach is rediculous.


You know Apocalyse Now is just a hyped up, over the top version of Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_, right?


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> A Prokofiev fan would say you're nuts! His Second is magnificent.


I consider myself a Prokofiev fan, but I also don't find his Symphony 2 so hot.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> I consider myself a Prokofiev fan, but I also don't find his Symphony 2 so hot.


If you were a _true_ Prokofiev fan …

Just kidding. I just wanted to try out the old true Englishman argument. But the second movement is inexhaustibly interesting, don't you think? I guess not.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I went back to a piece by Mozart I actually like, the Clarinet Concerto in A Major. Even though I liked it before, I was especially moved by it this time around with a different perspective in mind. I like Mozart much more when I was younger and started listening to classical music for the first time, which made me realize the key: _turn your brain off_. Seriously, when listening to Mozart I really ought to just turn my brain off. Bruce Dickinson, the singer from Iron Maiden said something along the lines of "If you want to truly enjoy heavy metal, you need to keep that inner 12 year inside of you and never grow out of it", and I find that oddly applies to Mozart for me. While there's nothing inherently wrong with it, being overanalytical and overly cerebral can get in the way of things. I realized listening to Mozart is one of the simple pleasures in life, like hugs and kisses, drinking tea, walking in the forest, etc. etc.. Don't work your brain into a tizzy over it, just enjoy it for what it is. I don't mean to imply that Mozart's music is simplistic or juvenile, and you certainly can analyze Mozart's music through a cerebral angle or analytic lens (this thread certainly proves that), but having a _brain turned off_ mindset really helps me appreciate it so much more. I like to think Mozart composes with Ockham's Razor and that's the beauty of it, which is something I knew before but hadn't sunk in the way it has recently. Don't get me wrong, I still find a good deal of Mozart boring, and maybe I'll always think of those specific pieces in that light, but I'm starting to get him more than I ever did before.


----------



## DavidA

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I went back to a piece by Mozart I actually like, the Clarinet Concerto in A Major. Even though I liked it before, I was especially moved by it this time around with a different perspective in mind. I like Mozart much more when I was younger and started listening to classical music for the first time, which made me realize the key: _turn your brain off_. Seriously, when listening to Mozart I really ought to just turn my brain off. Bruce Dickinson, the singer from Iron Maiden said something along the lines of "If you want to truly enjoy heavy metal, you need to keep that inner 12 year inside of you and never grow out of it", and I find that oddly applies to Mozart for me. While there's nothing inherently wrong with it, being overanalytical and overly cerebral can get in the way of things. I realized listening to Mozart is one of the simple pleasures in life, like hugs and kisses, drinking tea, walking in the forest, etc. etc.. Don't work your brain into a tizzy over it, just enjoy it for what it is. I don't mean to imply that Mozart's music is simplistic or juvenile, and you certainly can analyze Mozart's music through a cerebral angle or analytic lens (this thread certainly proves that), but having a _brain turned off_ mindset really helps me appreciate it so much more. I like to think Mozart composes with Ockham's Razor and that's the beauty of it, which is something I knew before but hadn't sunk in the way it has recently. Don't get me wrong, I still find a good deal of Mozart boring, and maybe I'll always think of those specific pieces in that light, but I'm starting to get him more than I ever did before.


I'd actually say you might question whether there are parts of your brain not working properly as you are missing so much in Mozart's music? It is your mindset and personality which is the problem, not the music.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DavidA said:


> I'd actually say you might question whether there are parts of your brain not working properly as you are missing so much in Mozart's music? It is your mindset and personality which is the problem, not the music.


I think that pertains to a lot of art. Though there definitely is music out there that one can argue to be objective trash, but that sort of music doesn't even get mentioned on this forum.


----------



## Phil loves classical

PopRock said:


> I love Mozart, his *Moonlite Sonata* is so beautiful, and I also love his Ave Maria


Must've been his ghost in some later composer that wrote it.


----------



## Luchesi

Mozart became a bad composer. Does Gould convince you?


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Mozart became a bad composer. Does Gould convince you?


if you are convinced by this nonsense you need counselling as much as Gould did! :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> if you are convinced by this nonsense you need counselling as much as Gould did! :lol:


Oh, what did you disagree with?


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Oh, what did you disagree with?


Towards the end of his life Gould obviously suffered from personality disorders and became like a perverse schoolboy. His performances of the Mozart sonatas are an example of this. 'I don't like them so I'm going to play them badly' Very sad really because he was a fine artist when he did what he did best and that did not include talking. As it was he did things like giving long and tedious lectures which nobody wanted to hear. All people wanted to do was to hear him play the piano not give his ridiculous opinions. Richter was the same but he tended to keep his opinions to himself


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> Towards the end of his life Gould obviously suffered from personality disorders and became like a perverse schoolboy. His performances of the Mozart sonatas are an example of this. 'I don't like them so I'm going to play them badly' Very sad really because he was a fine artist when he did what he did best and that did not include talking. As it was he did things like giving long and tedious lectures which nobody wanted to hear. All people wanted to do was to hear him play the piano not give his ridiculous opinions. Richter was the same but he tended to keep his opinions to himself


I like his opinions, whether I agree with them or not. As it happens, I think he's right about some of Mozart's piano sonatas being full of cliche chord progressions and runs and i'm glad he was autistic enough to buck the social convention of not criticising Lord Mozart.

I don't like his bach playing much. At the end of the day, though, i'd much rather hear his opinions about music than yours! He is engaging, concise, has a proven expertise in the field not to mention wit.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> I like his opinions, whether I agree with them or not. As it happens, I think he's right about some of Mozart's piano sonatas being full of cliche chord progressions and runs and i'm glad he was autistic enough to buck the social convention of not criticising Lord Mozart.
> 
> I don't like his bach playing much. At the end of the day, though, i'd much rather hear his opinions about music than yours!


Of course. I mean, no doubt you enjoy perversity?


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> Of course. I mean, no doubt you enjoy perversity?


What else draws a man back to TC, day after day?

You just need to warm to GG David:


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> What else draws a man back to TC, day after day?
> 
> You just need to warm to GG David:


I've got all his recordings. Just that I leave his tiresome opinions to others. As I say he lost too many opportunities to keep his mouth shut and playing the piano which is what people wanted to hear not his garrulous nonsense about Mozart


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> I've got all his recordings. Just that I leave his tiresome opinions to others. As I say he lost too many opportunities to keep his mouth shut and playing the piano which is what people wanted to hear not his garrulous nonsense about Mozart


You should listen to this recording. It's his best ever


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> i'm glad he was autistic enough to buck the social convention of not criticising Lord Mozart.


You also do know how unfair he was about Lord Ludwig, right?
*[ 1:00 ]*


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> i'd much rather hear his opinions about music than yours! He is engaging, concise, has a proven expertise in the field not to mention wit.


"Orlando Gibbons is my favorite composer-always has been. I can't think of anybody who represents the end of an era better than Orlando Gibbons does." -Gould
LOL


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> You should listen to this recording. It's his best ever


I have listened to the theatre of the absurd thank-you!


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> "Orlando Gibbons is my favorite composer-always has been. I can't think of anybody who represents the end of an era better than Orlando Gibbons does." -Gould
> LOL


As Gouldonly ever recorded three pieces by Gibbons (very well it must be said) that does make this statement perverse


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> As Gouldonly ever recorded three pieces by Gibbons (very well it must be said) that does make this statement perverse


He couldn't play on the piano the large amount of Gibbon's music he wanted to promote.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> He couldn't play on the piano the large amount of Gibbon's music he wanted to promote.


There are five volumes of it here

https://www.free-scores.com/sheetmusic?p=abSeILlqcN


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> There are five volumes of it here
> 
> https://www.free-scores.com/sheetmusic?p=abSeILlqcN


Thanks. I have the files from IMSLP, but it's a good website to be aware of.


----------



## Mandryka

Luchesi said:


> He couldn't play on the piano the large amount of Gibbon's music he wanted to promote.


It didn't seem to stop Daniel-Ben Pienaar.


----------



## Luchesi

Mandryka said:


> It didn't seem to stop Daniel-Ben Pienaar.


less than 27 percent was keyboard music


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> less than 27 percent was keyboard music


The point is that there was a lot more Gibbons that Gould could've recorded. I mean it would've been better to hear him play far more Gibbons well and far less Mozart badly


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> The point is that there was a lot more Gibbons that Gould could've recorded. I mean it would've been better to hear him play far more Gibbons well and far less Mozart badly


from wiki 
Gould wrote of Gibbons's hymns and anthems: "ever since my teen-age years this music ... has moved me more deeply than any other sound experience I can think of."

They didn't want him to spend his time with Gibbons when he could've made them profits with complete collections of the standard repertoire.

He was under contract to do all the Mozart sonatas and he said he loved the ones that were composed when Mozart was in his early 20s, but he didn't really want to record all of them. The same with Scarlatti, Handel suites and Haydn sonatas and of course Beethoven. After big selling alnums he was freer to pick and choose what he could interpret differently. There's a story of him sight reading the Grieg Concerto for a friend. He'd never played it before but he went through it very fast-paced, including the cadenza, singing the orchestral parts -- and then when he got all the way through the three movements he closed the book and only said, "It's not for me..". The friend who was sitting there amazed said he sounded just like Horowitz in this kind of music. So why play all the standard pieces without any new interpretations?

If he had lived longer he probably would've recorded many more Gibbons tracks etc., but he didn't really like the 'sound' of piano music. He bemoaned that he only had the piano..


----------

