# What makes Mozart's music so great?



## Dim7

I know there have been lots of similar threads, but I wanted to post one in the Music theory for a more technical perspective. Let's keep this strictly nerdy and cut out the sentimental "voice of God" nonsense. It may be impossible (and some might argue detrimental to dissect music like that, but those shouldn't probably hang around Music Theory form), but we can try. Ironically though I am very much a fan, I find it almost easier to "argue" that it's not that great. 

I think Septimal posted somewhere a fairly technical explanation about Mozart's greatness but I don't remember where.


----------



## KenOC

Wolfgang, being an egalitarian sort of fellow, wanted to write music where no tone gained precedence over any other. He proposed doing this by a system where no tone could be repeated until the other eleven had been heard.

Leopold, who was distinctly old-fashioned, put his foot down. The rest is history.

However, when Leopold's back was turned, he did invent a method of writing aleatoric or "chance" music. (this part is true...)


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Propaganda. People are _made_ to believe Mozart is great.


----------



## DavidA

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Propaganda. People are _made_ to believe Mozart is great.


Oh dear! I'm victim of propaganda then! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Propaganda, and conditioning. I well remember laying in my cradle, my father with his stick hovering over me like an avenging angel. “Mozart is great. Say it! Say it!” (whack!)

To this day, I say: Mozart is great.


----------



## Merl

As a sidenote, LenOC, Ive just been offered the Mozart 170 disc Brilliant Classics box for £20. Should I grab it?


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


> Propaganda, and conditioning. I well remember laying in my cradle, my father with his stick hovering over me like an avenging angel. "Mozart is great. Say it! Say it!" (whack!)
> 
> To this day, I say: Mozart is great.


It's almost the same here and... it worked .


----------



## Manxfeeder

Charles Rosen is poetic about how he feels what makes Mozart great: 

Perhaps no composer used the seductive physical power of music with the intensity and range of Mozart. The flesh is corrupt and corrupting. Behind Kierkegaard's essay on Don Giovanni stands the idea that music is a sin: it seems fundamentally sound that he should have chosen Mozart as the most sinful composer of all. What is most extraordinary about Mozart's style is the combination of physical delight - a sensuous play of sonority, an indulgence in the most luscious harmonic sequences - with a purity and economy of line and form that render the seduction all the more efficient.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Propaganda. People are _made_ to believe Mozart is great.


Didn't someone once say,



> If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.


But really, isn't part of the popularity of Mozart that his music is so easy to listen to, kind of like pop radio background music in the grocery store?


----------



## Dim7

Mozart music isn't really poppy kind of tuneful though. His movements typically don't have the kind of big tune analogous to a "chorus" in a pop song (even though sometimes classical music does have those, like the opening tune of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto for example).


----------



## Mahlerian

Florestan said:


> But really, isn't part of the popularity of Mozart that his music is so easy to listen to, kind of like pop radio background music in the grocery store?


I couldn't disagree more. Mozart's music, like that of any other great composer, requires full attention and concentration for understanding.

A few basic points:

- Mozart's music is very harmonically rich, often reaching into quite distant key areas in a short period of time
- Mozart's music is rhythmically diverse, with frequent alterations to basic shapes and motifs introduced constantly and a penchant for irregular phrase groupings
- The smooth surface generally perceived in Mozart's music is created often through juxtaposition of separate and highly contrasting material
- Mozart was a master at counterpoint, and once again the smooth surface may conceal the depth of inner movement for many


----------



## SixFootScowl

Of course I was jesting about the pop background music part.  Maybe got the wrong smiley  when I meant to have the tongue-in-cheek one:


----------



## Dim7

I suspected that  expressed irony here. However many do compare Mozart and pop music sort of half-seriously at least.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Mozart is a strange composer, I think. I came to him late. I had been exposed to his music as a child (my dad certainly had a recording of Eine kleine Nachtmusik and the Jupiter symphony) but found it too 'nice' and not interesting enough. He just didn't grab my attention.

It was the Requiem that first interested me, though I don't think that's a typical work. The piano concertos now...there's something 'perfect' about them; they seem to meet a sort of musical 'golden ratio'. Every note is somehow inevitable and just so; harmonies are lush and the melodic inventiveness is such that that there are always fresh ideas arriving: things never get stale.

I know the piano sonatas, string quartets and quintets and some of the violin sonatas best these days - all the mature works seem to have this 'effortless', 'just right' quality. It's very skilled work, but not musically adventurous or challenging from today's perspective, and given the choice of one pre-20th century composer only to listen to for ever more on a desert island, I would probably choose Beethoven, Bach père or even Schumann. But I'd always come back to listen to more Mozart, given the choice.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Dim7 said:


> I know there have been lots of similar threads, but I wanted to post one in the Music theory for a more technical perspective. Let's keep this strictly nerdy and cut out the sentimental "voice of God" nonsense. It may be impossible (and some might argue detrimental to dissect music like that, but those shouldn't probably hang around Music Theory form), but we can try. Ironically though I am very much a fan, I find it almost easier to "argue" that it's not that great.
> 
> I think Septimal posted somewhere a fairly technical explanation about Mozart's greatness but I don't remember where.


Did you mean this post? It talks a lot about interaction between opposite categories, motion vs. non-motion, texture 1 vs. texture 2, all both running alongside each other and interacting with each other.

Some people find Mozart cliche, probably because of the balanced phrasing, the half cadences or imperfect cadences, and the long cadential "padding" at the end of sections. But for me, those elements are (part of) what makes him so good! They give the medium/large scale harmonic motion of a movement a distinct identity and grace.

As far as Mozart's counterpoint goes, remember that it's usually a different kind of counterpoint from the imitative/canonic/fugal counterpoint. Of course, Mozart could write that kind of Bachian counterpoint, see the finales to the G major quartet, the D major quintet, the 19th piano concerto, or of course the Jupiter.

But more important than that (not to mention an extremely effective bassline rhythm and melodic inner voices, even if slow) is a slow counterpoint between _textures_. Take the opening of the 27th piano concerto. The strings have a melodic texture. Then, the winds play a dotted rhythm descending arpeggio B flat -> F -> D. This happens again.

Then, the strings play a melody one more time, and full cadencing. But note: that wind arpeggio, especially from ending on the "weak" note D rather than the tonic note B flat, still has to be resolved! It's an independent entity, that progressed with the strings in parallel, that requires resolution too. In other words, two textures are progressing at the same time, resolving the needs each other.

And how is this wind arpeggio that I mentioned resolved? By the whole orchestra. The strings, where the first violins play a higher D with that very dotted rhythm, into a descending scale and full cadence, and the viola/cello play a dotted F, into a common perfect cadential pattern. The flutes then play that dotted F and go up to B flat, descending into cadence as the violins.

Only with such outwardly simple materials could Mozart achieve such a grammar of interaction of textural opposites, tonic and dominant opposites, rhythmic opposites, and others. But because music CD pamphlets tend to ignore these strengths and focus on how Mozart was proto-Beethoven or proto-romantic (really?), or how he was very chromatic for his time (This is true, but it's not completely right because there are chromaticisms that Haydn would do in his expositions that Mozart wouldn't dare do, and it begs the question: why wasn't Mozart even more chromatic? And why do we still like the music of his that's quite diatonic? It turns out that these basic grammatical elements would be marred if Mozart did more chromaticism than he did.), or how "perfect" his music is (which doesn't help).

And, finally, as Mahlerian said, the irregular groupings of bar counts: these are largely possible (as are the textural shifts) because of such grounding in tonic and dominant. if Mozart was too "out there" harmonically, his music would be much worse.


----------



## KenOC

Merl said:


> As a sidenote, LenOC, Ive just been offered the Mozart 170 disc Brilliant Classics box for £20. Should I grab it?


Uh...yes. extra spaces needed to waste electrons


----------



## SixFootScowl

> As a sidenote, LenOC, Ive just been offered the Mozart 170 disc Brilliant Classics box for £20. Should I grab it?





KenOC said:


> Uh...yes. extra spaces needed to waste electrons


Yikes! Grab is immediately. Don't hesitate. That is the deal of the century!


----------



## Xenakiboy

> As a sidenote, LenOC, Ive just been offered the Mozart 170 disc Brilliant Classics box for £20. Should I grab it?


I don't even like Mozart (Persecute me?) and I'd buy that, deals like that only happen once in a lifetime!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Xenakiboy said:


> I don't even like Mozart (Persecute me?) and I'd buy that, deals like that only happen once in a lifetime!


If nothing else you can resell it for about 4 times as much and buy a complete Beethoven set.


----------



## KenOC

Yeah, Beethoven was quite the slacker. He lived much longer than Mozart wrote less than half as much.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Florestan said:


> If nothing else you can resell it for about 4 times as much and buy a complete Beethoven set.


Come on, by now you'd need to know that I want a complete J.S. Bach set! :tiphat:


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> If nothing else you can resell it for about 4 times as much and buy a complete Beethoven set.


Or a set of his own choice , the unfinished works of.....


----------



## KenOC

Pugg said:


> Or a set of his own choice , the unfinished works of.....


You can get just the unfinished parts for a very steep discount. This includes several readings of 4'33".


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


> You can get just the unfinished parts for a very steep discount. This includes several readings of 4'33".


You just made my day even more bright!:cheers:


----------



## Xenakiboy

Pugg said:


> You just made my day even more bright!:cheers:


"20 Pop singers cover 4'33"


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

For .89 cents you can get, 4'33'' (Cage Against The Machine Version)

https://www.amazon.com/433-Cage-Against-Machine-Version/dp/B004G1URYI


----------



## Dim7

As ironic as it is for me to act as if I was a moderator or something.... please could you keep on-topic? We have other threads for 4'33'' jokes...


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm _sick_ of zombies and 4'33" jokes...


----------



## millionrainbows

I just got through listening to Mozart's early sonatas for violin and harpsichord, K. 6-9. The one in G reminds me of the Sonata in A major, done much later.
This leads me to surmise that part of his greatness might be due to the fact that he was taught so early and intensely that music was virtually "hardwired" into him.

Check this out at 9:37 and compare it to the familiar Sonata in A major.


----------



## Xenakiboy

millionrainbows said:


> I'm _sick_ of zombies and 4'33" jokes...


The 4'33 joke is a zombie that won't stay dead


----------



## millionrainbows

John Cage might say that "the ego" is just a zombie. 

Christianity says that these bodies are not the real 'us,' and that we will all get new bodies in Heaven.

In this sense, we are all zombies.

And then there was the unfortunate case back in the 60s of the guy on LSD who realized he was just a zombie, and jumped off a building.


----------



## norman bates

I've always heard about Mozart being a master of harmony but to my ears he sound quite simple. 
Recently I've heard this interview with Ed Bickert who's one of my favorite jazz guitarists ever, and who's known for his sophisticated approach to harmony (actually he's not so out there like I don't know, Joe Diorio or Ben Monder) and at a certain point (3:20 in the video) he said that after many decades when he was interested in discovering interesting harmonies he started to listen to "very basic stuff like Mozart" ("the harmonies there were very basic" he adds).
http://www.jazzguitarlessons.net/getting-a-thrill-from-harmony-and-arrangers-ed-bickert-interviews-part-2/
So I wonder who's right about it, Bernstein or Bickert?
I mean, sure you can say it's simple for a guy listening in 2016 to see that music made in the eighteen century is not that harmonically complex, but when I listen to Gesualdo, or certain things made by Bach or other guys I still hear their music as much more harmonically interesting, I don't have the sensation of "very basic" that like Bickert I hear in Mozart (besides certain things like the quartet of dissonances or few other novelties).


----------



## Mahlerian

Take a look at one of Mozart's most famous melodies:






Starts off very simple, of course. I-V7, V7-I in the key of F major. Could anything be less complex? Well, note even then the complementary use of chromatic voice leading and also the three bar phrases. One would expect a continuation in the same or a similar vein, but what follows is completely unexpected and destroys all of the regularity we had come to expect. The *4*-bar continuation ends up in the parallel minor, emphasizing this with a V9 chord, the minor ninth of which is held for an entire bar. A circuitous phrase around this area of F minor continues for *5* bars, filled with suspensions and dissonances. Normalcy is restored, but not immediately, as we return with a pair of complementary 3-bar phrases, one ending on vi and the other on I, but in a very different fashion each time. D minor is reached via a diminished seventh chord on a weak beat, while we approach I through a V7-I cadence on a strong beat.

I (1 bar intro)
I-V7 (3 bars)
V7-I (3 bars)
V/IV-IV-viio7/V-i6/4 (4 bars)
Vm9-i6/4-V7-i6/4-V7 (5 bars)
I6-ii6-V7-viio7/vi-vi (3 bars)
I6-ii6-V7-I (3 bars)

The discussion of phrase lengths may seem superfluous when talking about harmony, but music is heard in time and harmonies heard in relation to musical context, so it's significant that the furthest digressions in this melody are emphasized with differing phrase lengths.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> As a sidenote, LenOC, Ive just been offered the Mozart 170 disc Brilliant Classics box for £20. Should I grab it?


I bought mine for £20 from a charity shop. Grab it for all you're worth. I mean, what to lose? The performances are never less than worthy and some are very good.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> John Cage might say that "the ego" is just a zombie.
> 
> *Christianity says that these bodies are not the real 'us,' and that we will all get new bodies in Heaven.
> *
> In this sense, we are all zombies.
> 
> And then there was the unfortunate case back in the 60s of the guy on LSD who realized he was just a zombie, and jumped off a building.


Actually that's not what Christianity says! Our bodies are part of the 'real us' until we leave this life and after that we will be given new bodies. St Paul says, 'We eagerly await the redemption of our body' but that doesn't mean the body is not part of the real us in this life. I mean, when I hit my finger with a hammer the body is very much part of the real me!


----------



## Fletcher

An organist friend of mine (says it all) recently told me that he doesn't like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's music because "it does exactly what you'd expect".

That is one of the main reasons as to why *I* like Mozart's music. #perfect


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Actually that's not what Christianity says! Our bodies are part of the 'real us' until we leave this life and after that we will be given new bodies. St Paul says, 'We eagerly await the redemption of our body' but that doesn't mean the body is not part of the real us in this life. I mean, when I hit my finger with a hammer the body is very much part of the real me!


Oh, I think the reason they decided that was because the sacrifice had to be real, or it wouldn't be valid. The Gnostics said he was detached. That was heresy, of course. Those gospels came from an area closer to the East than Rome was.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the Piano Concertos are the best stuff he did.


----------



## SimonDekkerLinnros

Fletcher said:


> An organist friend of mine (says it all) recently told me that he doesn't like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's music because "it does exactly what you'd expect".
> 
> That is one of the main reasons as to why *I* like Mozart's music. #perfect


That's where Beethoven comes into the picture


----------



## millionrainbows

I like Mozart because he knows how to treat a diminished chord: like a diminished chord, not a friggin' b9 dominant like beethoven!


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I think the reason they decided that was because the sacrifice had to be real, or it wouldn't be valid. The Gnostics said he was detached. That was heresy, of course. Those gospels came from an area closer to the East than Rome was.


They didn't 'decide' it. The New Testament teaches it!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> They didn't 'decide' it. The New Testament teaches it!


I'm referring to the Nicene Council, and the Nicene creed, in 300 A.D. The Bible was not even compiled until 300 years after Christ's death. The elders of Rome declared the Gnostic gospels to be heresy, and they were excluded.


----------



## zachybinx

mozart's music is not for everyone at all times. I came to him late because I preferred more turbulent stuff at first- scriabin, ravel, liszt, prokofiev, and then the atonal composers. But After I got out all of that tension pain i realized that mozart made me super super happy and euphoric. Sometimes you just have to be in a different place in your life to be able to appreciate certain artists. At first I thought mozart sounded downright stupid. Now I think he's one of the most magnificently witty and lyrical and beautiful composers there ever was. And also one of the most exciting to listen to. It can't be the only thing I listen to. after a while I need a rest from all the zippyness.


----------



## millionrainbows

zachybinx said:


> mozart's music is not for everyone at all times. I came to him late because I preferred more turbulent stuff at first- scriabin, ravel, liszt, prokofiev, and then the atonal composers. But After I got out all of that tension pain i realized that mozart made me super super happy and euphoric. Sometimes you just have to be in a different place in your life to be able to appreciate certain artists. At first I thought mozart sounded downright stupid. Now I think he's one of the most magnificently witty and lyrical and beautiful composers there ever was. And also one of the most exciting to listen to. It can't be the only thing I listen to. after a while I need a rest from all the zippyness.


Ha ha! As Townes van Zandt said, "There's the blues, and there's Zip-Ah-Dee-Doo-Dah."

Mozart was operating in a "system" where things were done a certain way. This is part of what is meant by "Classicism" to me.
So I look at his work in that light, and try to see the craftsmanship, always impeccable, and the ideas. When he uses diminished chords, I see that he is "straining at the bit."

I wish that he had been more of a "free agent" like Bach, who I see as much more harmonically radical and chromatic, even though he was earlier Baroque.

I think Mozart was operating "under restraints" of his situation. He did not occupy a crucial era of a changing paradigm in music, but rather a less mannered "classical" period of restraint and "keeping up the status quo." This must be due to historical and political forces in play during his time, don't you think?


----------



## isorhythm

Fletcher said:


> An organist friend of mine (says it all) recently told me that he doesn't like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's music because "it does exactly what you'd expect".
> 
> That is one of the main reasons as to why *I* like Mozart's music. #perfect


I just saw this post and have to disagree with your friend.

Mozart's music always does what, once you've heard it, makes you feel you expected it. But you actually didn't.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think a large part of my problem with Mozart is that he is largely homophonic in his approach, I suppose from writing so much opera. He's thinking in terms of a single-line of singing, and whatever counter-voices are in there seem to be going according to a blocked-out harmonic scheme of chord progressions, and are really not as independent as in, say, Bach. And he was not very harmonically daring; a melody note goes where it is supposed to go, harmonically, without any surprises, like you'd find in Wagner, where the singer might hit a note that changes the harmony, makes it go to a distant chord, etc. But I suppose that's an unfair comparison; but I find Bach more daring.


----------



## Razumovskymas

this is (among other pieces) why I like Mozart:






abundant yet dignified

powerful yet joyful with just a slight touch of melancholy.

Can someone point out the key features of this piece musicologically? I've read somewhere that he uses a lot of chromatism, does he use it in this piece too? I haven't had a musical education but I'm happy to learn!

To me his genius is in his chamber music.

Hard to get back to my Debussy edition after listening to this abundance


----------



## millionrainbows

It's on Brilliant. That's a pianoforte. It sounds like middle period Mozart to me, no chromatic surprises in what I listened to. Maybe later there is a slight excursion.


----------



## HopeMccuin

Well there are like 4 major musicians that are well known. Mozart, Chopin, Bach, and Beethoven. Well, that's a lie there are so many more that are famous to the common musician. Yes, propaganda has definitely increased their popularity but, their skill made them famous. Consider the talent that he has. He was a child prodigy and was playing for royalty at the age of 5, or something like that. Mozart also started a new style of music that was not used in his era. I mean as a person, Mozart was not great at all. He was narcissistic and knew that he was good at music. He made sure everyone knew that as well. It depends on your perspective. Mozart is not the only one.


----------



## jdec

_Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln: "Propaganda. People are made to believe Mozart is great."_



DavidA said:


> Oh dear! I'm victim of propaganda then! :lol:


Yes, there were also other fools, victim of this propaganda to believe Mozart was great, among them: Haydn, Wagner, Schubert, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Dvorak, Brahms, Saint-Saens, Gounod, Rossini, Albert Einstein, etc, etc...


----------



## Pugg

jdec said:


> _Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln: "Propaganda. People are made to believe Mozart is great."_
> 
> Yes, there were also other fools, victim of this propaganda to believe Mozart was great, among them: Haydn, Wagner, Schubert, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Chopin, Dvorak, Brahms, Saint-Saens, Gounod, Rossini, Albert Einstein, etc, etc...


Touché I say.......


----------



## hpowders

Dim7 said:


> I know there have been lots of similar threads, but I wanted to post one in the Music theory for a more technical perspective. Let's keep this strictly nerdy and cut out the sentimental "voice of God" nonsense. It may be impossible (and some might argue detrimental to dissect music like that, but those shouldn't probably hang around Music Theory form), but we can try. Ironically though I am very much a fan, I find it almost easier to "argue" that it's not that great.
> 
> I think Septimal posted somewhere a fairly technical explanation about Mozart's greatness but I don't remember where.


If we could all explain Mozart's greatness, he wouldn't be great, because all of us would copy him and churn out similar compositions.


----------



## Guillet81

I think Einstein probably put it best:

"Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it -- that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe, waiting to be revealed."

~ Albert Einstein


----------



## SixFootScowl

Guillet81 said:


> I think Einstein probably put it best:
> 
> "Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it -- that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe, waiting to be revealed."
> 
> ~ Albert Einstein


Makes sense in that Beethoven worked hard for his music, but the music more or less flowed from Mozart, or so I have heard.


----------



## DavidA

Mozart was probably musically the most gifted person who has ever lived. And while other composers might be described as 'tortured geniuses' Mozart appears to have been quite at ease with his own genius. Why his music appears so natural and so inevitable.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think a large part of my problem with Mozart is that he is largely homophonic in his approach, I suppose from writing so much opera. He's thinking in terms of a single-line of singing, and whatever counter-voices are in there seem to be going according to a blocked-out harmonic scheme of chord progressions, and are really not as independent as in, say, Bach. *And he was not very harmonically daring*; a melody note goes where it is supposed to go, harmonically, without any surprises, like you'd find in Wagner, where the singer might hit a note that changes the harmony, makes it go to a distant chord, etc. But I suppose that's an unfair comparison; but I find Bach more daring.


You really listening to the same guy I am?


----------



## EdwardBast

So much for the OPs request for technical discussion and his wish to avoid the sentimental voice-of-God nonsense.  It was worth a try. Note: This is not a comment on the contributions of individual posters, but on the general trend of the thread.


----------



## Guillet81

Fair point. I must admit to being unable to respond with any advanced understanding of musical construction, on the merits of Mozart, as I severely lack formal instruction on the matter.

The closest I can come to a "technical" explanation is that Mozart's music always seems to "fit" perfectly: The various melodies combine with one another as fluidly as any other composer, and consistently so, even as his music is undeniably complex and multi-layered.

Melodies, counter-melodies, arranged in one form or another... And yet, harmony and beauty are not only maintained, but put front and center for the listener to enjoy, to the point that the music can even appear "simple" at first glance. Come to think of it, I'm not sure one can adequately render justice to the quality of Mozart's music by discussing its technical aspects alone.


----------



## pcnog11

Many of us mentioned they like the melodic phrases of Mozart and the harmony to those phrases. I think the most interesting part of Mozart's music is the tension he created and integrating it into the fine melodic details. The emotional colors and are endless and each change of note in the harmony changes the emotions. sometime drastically. I do not know much music theory but hearing the changes in harmony makes the pieces so intriguing and enjoyable.


----------



## EdwardBast

Guillet81 said:


> Come to think of it, I'm not sure one can adequately render justice to the quality of Mozart's music by discussing its technical aspects alone.


This might be true. In my case, I have no trouble analyzing specific works by Mozart in detail and pointing out their interesting and sterling qualities. But I don't have any broad stylistic generalizations to make about them.


----------



## LiBardugo

well the Mozart was among the first ones to compose such a beautiful music so that makes for a certain admiring. 
And his music was and still is very beautiful to listen to, it just makes your spirit feel free.

I mean if you listen to the best mozart music he composed like this one: 




You will see why he was so great


----------



## hpowders

If l knew what made Mozart's music so great, I would simply copy the formula or recipe and the music would then be diluted to mediocre. Glad I'm not able to do that.


----------



## Pugg

LiBardugo said:


> well the Mozart was among the first ones to compose such a beautiful music so that makes for a certain admiring.
> And his music was and still is very beautiful to listen to, it just makes your spirit feel free.
> 
> I mean if you listen to the best mozart music he composed like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will see why he was so great


I am going to play a disc right now.


----------



## quietfire

Mozart is one of those composers where I get more enjoyment playing his music more than listening to them.


----------



## Pugg

quietfire said:


> Mozart is one of those composers where I get more enjoyment playing his music more than listening to them.


Which instrument you play, if I may ask?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

hpowders said:


> If l knew what made Mozart's music so great, I would simply copy the formula or recipe and the music would then be diluted to mediocre. Glad I'm not able to do that.


Learn how to compose jingles and tunes for little children (it's a very valuable tool, if you want to write commercial soundtracks or library music these days).
Then use all these techniques with more sophisticated harmony and development of the themes instead of just repeating a melodic loop. 
His harmonic language is primitive, but his melodic isn't: Mozart likes to use different modes - like hindu major and many others - for his melodies. If you are interested in the different modes of the 12tet scale, check the Forte classification of the pitch class sets and rotate the starting position of the scale 7note scales to derive all the modes.


----------



## SixFootScowl

quietfire said:


> Mozart is one of those composers where I get more enjoyment playing his music more than listening to them.


Which is easier to play? Mozart or Beethoven?


----------



## Jacred

What makes Mozart good is that he makes music seem so natural. It's like each note arrives in his head with a pre-destined purpose and he guides it to a precise spot in his music, making it seem like the note _belongs_ there and has always belonged there.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

quietfire said:


> Mozart is one of those composers where I get more enjoyment playing his music more than listening to them.


Interesting. I'm the mirror opposite. I consider Mozart the greatest creative artist in any medium in human history, and if I could take the music of only one composer to Mars with me he'd be the one, but when I play the piano I find Baroque or Romantic music suits me better.


----------



## AfterHours

Mahlerian said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Mozart's music, like that of any other great composer, requires full attention and concentration for understanding.
> 
> A few basic points:
> 
> - Mozart's music is very harmonically rich, often reaching into quite distant key areas in a short period of time
> - Mozart's music is rhythmically diverse, with frequent alterations to basic shapes and motifs introduced constantly and a penchant for irregular phrase groupings
> - The smooth surface generally perceived in Mozart's music is created often through juxtaposition of separate and highly contrasting material
> - Mozart was a master at counterpoint, and once again the smooth surface may conceal the depth of inner movement for many


This is a great, concise analysis. Particularly in his greatest works, these elements often produce "emotional dualities" that add an amazing, even bewildering depth, to his music. "Bewildering" because it always sounds so free and flowing (often with never-ending legato) and effortless no matter how "serious" it becomes. Also, because these "dualities" are "hidden" in such perfectly formed and executed structures, in such perfect, balanced melodies and harmonies, whereas other composers go through much more strenuous and elaborate lengths to evoke the same types of emotions.

Furthermore, Mozart often found single notes or melodies that, when played in a precise way and tempo, evoked multiple, contrasting emotions _simultaneously_, "magic notes" so to speak -- and are endlessly compelling and bewildering. For instance, the famous 2nd movement of his 21st Piano Concerto: serene, floating ecstacy or nostalgia? Insouciant about life or gradually escalating despondency, worry and anxiety? If one listens attentively, he/she will hear all of these emotions, themes, often in the same notes simultaneously or the same melodic lines.

Because this can all just "pass by" one in an effortless manner (and perhaps other reasons) the emotional depth of Mozart's music is often under-estimated.


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> Didn't someone once say,
> 
> *But really, isn't part of the popularity of Mozart that his music is so easy to listen to,* kind of like pop radio background music in the grocery store?


The art of great music is that it is easy to listen to. It is a myth that to be great, music has to be hard on the ear.


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> Which is easier to play? Mozart or Beethoven?


The great pianist Schnabel said: "The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for artists."

Mozart is easy to play badly and extremely difficult to play well. Ask the great pianists.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DavidA said:


> *The art of great music is that it is easy to listen to*. It is a myth that to be great, music has to be hard on the ear.


There is a whole lot of pop drivel that many find easy to listen to.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA makes a valid point. Mozart's music isn't easy to listen to _solely_ as a consequence of excellence, but Mozart's mastery at finding the "right" notes to follow one another do help give it a sense of inevitability and ease. People who don't care for Mozart, or the Classical style in general, often say that the music is "too predictable." Of course if were really predictable those people could write it themselves! Mozart's work is actually full of subtlety and irregularity, but his art was to make it all sound natural and inevitable. That makes it "easy to listen to."


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> There is a whole lot of pop drivel that many find easy to listen to.


Sorry but I was talking about great music not pop drivel. The greatness of Mozart's art is like the greatness of a supreme orator in that he communicates so well that he enables you to understand clearly his meaning however difficult the subject. What music deals with human relationships and emotions so clearly yet so simply as Figaro? Yet this simplicity of genius stumbles those who are looking for greatness in complexity.


----------



## Vaneyes

A. Tunes came so easily to him. Writing was fun.


----------



## dzc4627

Mozart, for me at least, has been like the advice of an elder. When young, I assumed it to be stuck in the past and rudimentary. Yet now, when slightly less young, and after actually having listened to more than a half of a piece, I realize it is such incredible music. 

Many forget that music for many years had the primary purpose of refreshing the soul. I can't think of a piece that does that better than Mozart 41, it is such a grande exaltation of everything joyful. The counterpoint in the last movement, as well as similar counterpoint in the first movement of the Prague... they just get better the more I listen.


----------



## Pugg

Vaneyes said:


> A. Tunes came so easily to him. Writing was fun.


And sounding as music from heaven.


----------



## Woodduck

Pugg said:


> And sounding as music from heaven.


I get a different kind of music from heaven. I assume the DCC (Divine Communications Corporation) monitors our browsing habits and customizes their transmissions accordingly.


----------



## hpowders

OP: I know the reason but I will not share. I will use Mozart's secret to become Talk Classical's Composer in Chief!!! :devil:


----------



## Pugg

Woodduck said:


> I get a different kind of music from heaven. I assume the DCC (Divine Communications Corporation) monitors our browsing habits and customizes their transmissions accordingly.


Each his/ her own Wood taste ( good or bad), we established that this morning....


----------



## PlaySalieri

Fletcher said:


> An organist friend of mine (says it all) recently told me that he doesn't like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's music because "it does exactly what you'd expect".
> 
> That is one of the main reasons as to why *I* like Mozart's music. #perfect


I have heard this before. Let's say it's true - so what? I know sy no 41 like the back of my hand - doesnt diminish the wonder of it.
But it's not true - in fact it has been proven, rythmically at least

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/65362-prof-maps-math-music-mozart-least-predictable

I think the truth is - Mozart's music is so familiar that people make these silly statements not realising how much Mozart they actually know.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> DavidA makes a valid point. Mozart's music isn't easy to listen to _solely_ as a consequence of excellence, but Mozart's mastery at finding the "right" notes to follow one another do help give it a sense of inevitability and ease. People who don't care for Mozart, or the Classical style in general, often say that the music is "too predictable." Of course if were really predictable those people could write it themselves! Mozart's work is actually full of subtlety and irregularity, but his art was to make it all sound natural and inevitable. That makes it "easy to listen to."


I rarely agree with you - but you make some excellent points here. Esp what you say about Mozart's knack of finding the right next note. Eric Blom said that Mozart's strongest point is not in the originality of his material (though I do disagree with him on this) but the way he arranges it.


----------



## lluissineu

hpowders said:


> OP: I know the reason but I will not share. I will use Mozart's secret to become Talk Classical's Composer in Chief!!! :devil:


You're a sorcerer's apprentice. Be careful with your broomstick!


----------



## millionrainbows

Mozart was writing largely to entertain. Music had a certain function back then, largely social. What other composer would have a collection like this:








Get this CD, it explains much in the booklet notes.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> I rarely agree with you - but you make some excellent points here. Esp what you say about Mozart's knack of finding the right next note. Eric Blom said that Mozart's strongest point is not in the originality of his material (though I do disagree with him on this) but the way he arranges it.


For me Mozart's greatest sleight of hand is the way he gets you to the recapitulation after the development section in a sonata movement. He never signals the return of the opening theme in the obvious way that, say, Brahms sometimes does, but leaves you simultaneously satisfied and saying to yourself, "How the heck did he _do_ that?" Brahms himself recognized, and envied, Mozart's ability to make the difficult sound spontaneous and easy.


----------



## hpowders

I know the secret but am Haydn it because it is worth a 4-tune.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> I know the secret but am Haydn it because it is worth a 4-tune.


That's Vanhal of a claim. Sorry, you sym phony to me. But if you can deliver, I'll eat Hummel pie, take you out on a Benda, and have Sammartinis (unless, of course, you haven't the Stamitz for it).


----------



## AfterHours

Woodduck said:


> That's Vanhal of a claim. Sorry, you sym phony to me. But if you can deliver, I'll eat Hummel pie, take you out on a Benda, and have Sammartinis (unless, of course, you haven't the Stamitz for it).


Oh dear, please save us from the pun-itive damages...


----------



## hpowders

AfterHours said:


> Oh dear, please save us from the pun-itive damages...


Can you put a Price on those damages, Leontyne?


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> That's Vanhal of a claim. Sorry, you sym phony to me. But if you can deliver, I'll eat Hummel pie, take you out on a Benda, and have Sammartinis (unless, of course, you haven't the Stamitz for it).


Certain posters are starting to complain. To me, it's simply a case of just pun-ishment.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Certain posters are starting to complain.


I think Mozart would be pleased. The pun has been called the lowest form of humor, but no form was too low for him.


----------



## JAS

Woodduck said:


> I think Mozart would be pleased. The pun has been called the lowest form of humor, but no form was too low for him.


It is off to the atonal music thread for both of you until you learn to behave yourselves like decent folk. :devil:


----------



## millionrainbows

What makes Mozart's music so great? Let's see, huh…I guess that it is because it does not succumb to overly-Romantic tendencies. It retains an Apollonian classical detachment. At least, that's how I rationalize it. Look at me, I'm digging Mozart! Yeah, man, I'm really getting' into it! See me dancing?


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> I think Mozart would be pleased. The pun has been called the lowest form of humor, but no form was too low for him.


Not really. One has to be learned to appreciate many of mine. If one knows Notung about CM, most of my puns simply get finessed right through the uninitiated.


----------



## hpowders

Who says Mozart's music is great or any composer's music is great? What makes a composer's music stand out as great? Is there a greatness committee? Why Mozart? Why not Tubin?

I had a can of _greatfruit _and orange slices. Now THAT was great!!


----------



## millionrainbows

What makes Mozart's music grate? The same thing that makes cheese grate: a sharp grater and a little elbow grease!



More Grated Cheese images


----------



## SixFootScowl

millionrainbows said:


> What makes Mozart's music grate? The same thing that makes cheese grate: a sharp grater and a little elbow grease!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More Grated Cheese images


Ummmmmmm! I love grated cheese images. If only they could make the computer convey the aroma! They have video conferencing on the web why not transmission of smells?


----------



## dzc4627

hpowders said:


> Who says Mozart's music is great or any composer's music is great? What makes a composer's music stand out as great? Is there a greatness committee? Why Mozart? Why not Tubin?
> 
> I had a can of _greatfruit _and orange slices. Now THAT was great!!


While were at it, let's just throw out value structures all together. Excuse me while I go listen to 100 metronomes started at different times. Ciao!


----------



## hpowders

Okay, forum dwellers. What would you do if I gave you the secret answer as to why Mozart's music is so great? You must promise me not to use the secret to become another one of the great composers. Can you do that? Can you promise me? Otherwise, I will simply bury the secret under the deepest sub-forum I can find on TC. 
Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and Goldstein doesn't sound that good anyway.

While I'm waiting for responses, I'm off for some cheerios & milk; some Whole-y Gruel.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hpowders said:


> Okay, forum dwellers. What would you do if I gave you the secret answer as to why Mozart's music is so great? You must promise me not to use the secret to become another one of the great composers. Can you do that? Can you promise me? Otherwise, I will simply bury the secret under the deepest sub-forum I can find on TC.
> Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and Goldstein doesn't sound that good anyway.
> 
> While I'm waiting for responses, I'm off for some cheerios & milk; some Whole-y Gruel.


what has happened to this thread?


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> what has happened to this thread?


I think what happened is the OP asked a theoretical question for which no one had a theoretical answer. Fun and puns ensued. Does that about cover it?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I think what happened is the OP asked a theoretical question for which no one had a theoretical answer. Fun and puns ensued. Does that about cover it?


What makes Mozart's music so Great?

Okay, if you want a technical answer, here it is: I-IV-V7 (repeat as necessary)


----------



## Neward Thelman

KenOC said:


> , he did invent a method of writing aleatoric or "chance" music. (this part is true...)


What???????

Are you sure? Are you confusing improvisation and embellishment with aleatory?


----------



## Neward Thelman

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Propaganda. People are _made_ to believe Mozart is great.


Ha.

...........


----------



## hpowders

Three parts genius, two parts trill, 6 parts sensitivity to women and the female voice. Blend for 20 seconds on low.


----------



## millionrainbows

The "greatness" of Mozart's music might be an _impediment_ to someone who approaches it. Often times the rhetoric of genius gets in the way of an honest, unaffected response to music.

I don't want anyone to simply "appreciate" Mozart; I'd rather see them actually _moved_ by it.

Glenn Gould did this for me with Bach; Giuliano Carmignola did this for me with Vivaldi.

Let us remember that "great" music is not produced by solitary "geniuses," but comes out of the context surrounding it as well, and to "live" it needs living, breathing performers to infuse it with "greatness."

Otherwise, I have no use for the idea of "great" music. It is just an idea.


----------



## philoctetes

Mozart lifts the spirit and never offends. His greatness is not the Beethoven kind, but the kind that sneaks up and becomes a habit of pleasure.


----------



## SixFootScowl

philoctetes said:


> Mozart lifts the spirit and never offends. His greatness is not the Beethoven kind, but the kind that sneaks up and becomes a habit of pleasure.


Mozart for pleasure. Beethoven for serious listening.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Florestan said:


> Mozart for pleasure. Beethoven for serious listening.




I think one ingredient which makes Mozart's music so great is his efficiency to say so much with so little. Don't ask me how.


----------



## JeffD

In case this has never been posted before:






Oh my.


----------



## trazom

Florestan said:


> Mozart for pleasure. Beethoven for serious listening.


Interesting false dichotomy. I, and many people who actually do like Mozart's music, listen to it as much for pleasure as for serious reasons. I can't imagine there are many music lovers who derive no pleasure out of the "serious" music that they regularly listen to.


----------



## jegreenwood

JeffD said:


> In case this has never been posted before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.


That was great.


----------



## Pugg

JeffD said:


> In case this has never been posted before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.


Bernstein is always right.


----------



## Jacred

trazom said:


> Interesting false dichotomy. I, and many people who actually do like Mozart's music, listen to it as much for pleasure as for serious reasons. I can't imagine there are many music lovers who derive no pleasure out of the "serious" music that they regularly listen to.


Besides, I would hate for a composer's entire oeuvre to be considered "serious" listening without some element of pleasure in it.


----------



## Mandryka

Florestan said:


> Mozart for pleasure. Beethoven for serious listening.


 And a melon for ecstasy.


----------



## millionrainbows

...Because he's chromatic, not just diatonic, and he understands the "chromatic/fifths connection," as I call it.

Just stay on the diminished sevenths longer, slow it down, add singing, a healthy dose of Humanistic ego, and you've got Wagner! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> And a melon for ecstasy.


Melons, eh? Have you been eating melons exclusively lately? Hmmm?


----------



## JosefinaHW

JeffD said:


> In case this has never been posted before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my.


Wow! A million thanks for sharing this link! I am purchasing the entire series of lectures on DVD from Amazon (I don't trust YouTube videos to remain there indefinitely):

From Facebook: "They are entitled "The Unanswered Question c.1973" the six Norton lectures presented at Harvard and televised by PBS way back in 1973. I would encourage you to check out the (unedited, they are edited actually) versions of these 6 lectures (easily found on you tube) or they can be purchased on Amazon."


----------



## Pugg

JosefinaHW said:


> Wow! A million thanks for sharing this link! I am purchasing the entire series of lectures on DVD from Amazon (I don't trust YouTube videos to remain there indefinitely):
> 
> From Facebook: "They are entitled "The Unanswered Question c.1973" the six Norton lectures presented at Harvard and televised by PBS way back in 1973. I would encourage you to check out the (unedited, they are edited actually) versions of these 6 lectures (easily found on you tube) or they can be purchased on Amazon."


A must have Josefina , just like his other boxes with lectures and explaining music.


----------



## ST4

I still struggle with Mozart, not that he is "inaccessible" but rather the opposite, it's hard to get much from it because it usually sounds too obvious to me, like I can predict exactly whats going to happen from the first few bars of each movement.

Now there are exceptions and much like Webern, I am impressed of how he is able to fill so much harmonic space with so little, or aka create the illusion of more things being present. But outside of that, it's hard to 'get into".

Some late works like that (obviously darker) Requiem and his 27th piano concerto, float my boat but otherwise I struggle for the aforementioned reasons. But it's not like you have to like it either, so it becomes more of the case of analyzing the reasons *why* than trying to convince myself.


----------



## Jacob Brooks

@ST4: If the emotions of the pieces themselves don't intuitively convince you it may be difficult to understand what other people see in Mozart. I recommend understanding it like this (and maybe understanding it in Haydn's music first will help; that's how it worked for me). All music is a negotiation between expected and unexpected elements, certain things are held constant while others are explored. In the classical period paradigm, the tonality is almost totally held constant, so much of the creative and unexpected choices are made by experimenting (or 'playing with,' experimenting in this context doesn't necessarily mean 'make sound weird') with expectations of something along the lines of the melody and structure of the pieces.

Within this framework of watching the inventiveness and originality of it outside of the harmonic sphere, Haydn isn't a better start because he is more simple. He is actually a better start because he is far more inventive with this stuff. Mozart achieves in lyricism and emotion where Haydn doesn't, though.


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> I still struggle with* Mozart*, not that he is "inaccessible" but rather the opposite, it's hard to get much from it because *it usually sounds too obvious to me, like I can predict exactly whats going to happen from the first few bars of each **movement. *
> 
> Now there are exceptions and much like Webern, I am impressed of how he is able to fill so much harmonic space with so little, or aka create the illusion of more things being present. But outside of that, it's hard to 'get into".
> 
> Some late works like that (obviously darker) Requiem and his 27th piano concerto, float my boat but otherwise I struggle for the aforementioned reasons. But it's not like you have to like it either, so it becomes more of the case of analyzing the reasons *why* than trying to convince myself.


Wow! That IS incredible genius. If you can do THAT, I am anxiously awaiting Mozart's 28th piano concerto. Just start off with a typical Mozart march-like opening. Should be a drop in the bucket for you. Don't forget to write the trills from the upper note!!


----------



## ST4

hpowders said:


> Wow! That IS incredible genius. If you can do THAT, I am anxiously awaiting Mozart's 28th piano concerto. Just start off with a typical Mozart march-like opening. Should be a drop in the bucket for you. Don't forget to write the trills from the upper note!!


:lol:

You forget he already composed a 28th sonata:


----------



## ST4

But seriously a large majority of the works I have heard from Mozart are like that for me, those cliches made in that era. The very ridged sense of form, the very simple themes. Some classical era stuff appeals to me (like some late Mozart and other stuff I've been talking about in other threads). It's not a case of bashing but there are those aforementioned things +


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> :lol:
> 
> You forget he already composed a 28th sonata:


I love the early Beethoven Piano Sonatas.


----------



## EdwardBast

ST4 said:


> :lol:
> 
> You forget he already composed a 28th sonata:


You could mistake that sonata for Mozart? Seriously? :lol:


----------



## Animal the Drummer

IMO the word "cliché" is getting way more traction than it deserves in this and some other threads. Every note of music is a cliché. Every composer, every player, every listener works with the same dozen notes, so anyone for whom sheer novelty is a priority in its own right may well ultimately be wasting their time with music altogether.

Where Mozart's music specifically is concerned, as so often before in these discussions Peter Shaffer's words say it all for me:

"The best of Mozart's works - say, the last dozen of these piano concerti - demonstrate the thrilling paradox at the heart of created things: they justify obedience to form. Actually, they exult in it. They celebrate the idea of the correct, and prove beyond dispute the necessity of artifice. Such pieces are true examples of composition. I mean by this that they are composed in both senses of the word - as a serene work may be, or a serene woman. The formality of their structure both compresses and expresses the beauty; it acts as an unbreakable cup to contain the sweetest pressings of the wine."


----------



## millionrainbows

ST4 said:


> I still struggle with Mozart, not that he is "inaccessible" but rather the opposite, it's hard to get much from it because it usually sounds too obvious to me, like I can predict exactly whats going to happen from the first few bars of each movement.


But consider this: Like Bernstein demonstrated with that G minor symphony, Mozart can modulate to "impossibly distant" key areas, so smoothly that you don't even notice it. Maybe you just _think_ he's predictable, but he is truly a magician in this sense. He pulls the rug out from under you without you even noticing.


----------



## Pawelec

Hide your Beethoven in the closet, or even better, replace that pre-Romantic deaf man with a truly Classical composer like Haydn, Kozeluch, Hoffmeister, Boccherini, Danzi, Paisiello, Pleyel, Myslivecek, Abel... And please, burn the damned cadenzas for K.466 as Hummel wrote way better ones and Beethoven's pitiful attempts ruin the otherwise perfect concerto. I don't know what exactly Ludwig did to Western music, but if I like the piece it means it's by pre-Beethovenian composer, with the only exceptions being Schumann's chamber music and Reger's organ works.

Mozart knew you have to keep the music clear. Double the voices if you need to impress, don't overfill the harmony. As someone wrote at the first page: Mozart's solutions are so natural you think they were completely obvious after you've heard them, but in fact you hadn't thought of them until they were played. This gives that heavenly 'ah, yes, this is exactly what was needed here' feeling of perfection. And that's not a matter of training as I felt that while listening to his first mass setting - he was still taking lessons from his father when he wrote it. It was a miraculous combination of genius, practise and musician-friendly environment.

Harmonic analysis of Mozart's pieces shows that they follow the rules of both functional and diatonic harmony and every chromatic twist is justified by a theoretical modulation (even if it lasts for a fraction of a bar). As that part of music theory wasn't known in the 18th century Mozart must have simply felt all of that - the conclusion is there was one more decisive factor: he must have had absolutely perfect ear, being capable of hearing all the interactions between the overtones.

Scientific analysis done by physicists shows that of all the major composers only Mozart and Chopin show such a consistency of overtone series distribution in their works, with Beethoven and Brahms being the most messy ones. So that's not really a matter of music theory, but rather of acoustics. Mozart felt what sounds good without knowing of the overtones' existence.


----------



## ST4

EdwardBast said:


> You could mistake that sonata for Mozart? Seriously? :lol:


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sarcasm

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/irony

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/joke


----------



## ST4

Animal the Drummer said:


> IMO the word "cliché" is getting way more traction than it deserves in this and some other threads. Every note of music is a cliché. Every composer, every player, every listener works with the same dozen notes, so anyone for whom sheer novelty is a priority in its own right may well ultimately be wasting their time with music altogether.
> 
> Where Mozart's music specifically is concerned, as so often before in these discussions Peter Shaffer's words say it all for me:
> 
> "The best of Mozart's works - say, the last dozen of these piano concerti - demonstrate the thrilling paradox at the heart of created things: they justify obedience to form. Actually, they exult in it. They celebrate the idea of the correct, and prove beyond dispute the necessity of artifice. Such pieces are true examples of composition. I mean by this that they are composed in both senses of the word - as a serene work may be, or a serene woman. The formality of their structure both compresses and expresses the beauty; it acts as an unbreakable cup to contain the sweetest pressings of the wine."


No, and it's not mentioned like that, I'm an open person, I'll listen to it 50 times if you want me to :lol:

Cliches though, as in; composition techniques, structural devices or most blatantly noticeable ornaments.


----------



## ST4

millionrainbows said:


> But consider this: Like Bernstein demonstrated with that G minor symphony, Mozart can modulate to "impossibly distant" key areas, so smoothly that you don't even notice it. Maybe you just _think_ he's predictable, but he is truly a magician in this sense. He pulls the rug out from under you without you even noticing.


Yes I am aware of this and there are several pieces I have been surprised and intrigued by in this regard


----------



## JosefinaHW

I've just gotten to Lecture Five of Bernstein's Harvard Talks where I finished listening to Ive's _Unanswered Question _and I've been in tears since the piece started. Such an extraordinary moment in my life--strings sounding at first like a funeral piece for the death of music........ then the steady reassurance that it will never die it might just be drowned out by ugly noise from time to time.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

ST4 said:


> No, and it's not mentioned like that, I'm an open person, I'll listen to it 50 times if you want me to :lol:
> 
> Cliches though, as in; composition techniques, structural devices or most blatantly noticeable ornaments.


That's simply a restatement of your previous argument in different words, so I don't have much to add either. They may be "clichés" to you, but the validity of that concept is highly dubious in a musical context.


----------



## EdwardBast

ST4 said:


> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sarcasm
> 
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/irony
> 
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/joke


http://press.princeton.edu/images/k7929.gif


----------



## millionrainbows

In order to really appreciate Mozart's genius, you need to listen to some didgeridoo music:


----------



## Pugg

EdwardBast said:


> http://press.princeton.edu/images/k7929.gif


http://www.talkclassical.com/50215-bye.html

Post 11


----------



## millionrainbows

What makes Mozart's music grate?


----------



## SixFootScowl

millionrainbows said:


> What makes Mozart's music grate?


I don't know. Maybe because Mozart's music has the consistency of cheese?


----------



## millionrainbows

Florestan said:


> I don't know. Maybe because Mozart's music has the consistency of cheese?


It definitely has that aged smell.


----------



## TennysonsHarp

Personally, I notice that Mozart's music at once establishes and breaks his own rules with regards to form. Mozart's piano concertos and later symphonies have this quality of being perfectly constructed, in particular. Once Mozart establishes his theme, he plays with it and toys with it, working in different complexities and tone colors. Mozart's music show attention to detail and craftsmanship, really. 

But that's just how I see it.


----------



## hpowders

OP: It's like you are looking for a tangible recipe for Mozart's genius, so we can all copy it and become great composers too.

One can't define the intangible. Just be glad we lived after him and not before.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hpowders said:


> OP: It's like you are looking for a tangible recipe for Mozart's genius, so we can all copy it and become great composers too.
> 
> *One can't define the intangible.* Just be glad we lived after him and not before.


That's not true.

"justice" is intangible - and you will find a definition in the dictionary.


----------



## Der Titan

But is Mozart great? OK, he is a great composer, I wouldn't deny that, but the point is that he is not only a great composer but has certain abilities which make him not only a great composer but also a composer not better but more popular than other ones. Haydn for example is great, and he is as great as Mozart and Beethoven, but he doesn't enjoy that popularity. Mozart has this ability not only to compose great music, but also music who can become more popular.


----------



## jegreenwood

Der Titan said:


> But is Mozart great? OK, he is a great composer, I wouldn't deny that, but the point is that he is not only a great composer but has certain abilities which make him not only a great composer but also a composer not better but more popular than other ones. Haydn for example is great, and he is as great as Mozart and Beethoven, but he doesn't enjoy that popularity. Mozart has this ability not only to compose great music, but also music who can become more popular.


My entirely subjective and generalizing distinction between Haydn on the one hand and Mozart and Beethoven on the other: Haydn celebrates music for its own sake. Mozart and Beethoven (each in his own way) are somehow more able to use music to reflect and elicit human emotion.


----------



## Larkenfield

_What makes Mozart's music so great? _

What he leaves out that no one will ever know.

It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Fritz Kobus said:


> Mozart for pleasure. Beethoven for serious listening.


Indeed, Mozart




for pleasure,
and Beethoven




for serious listening


----------



## Larkenfield

The Mozart _Laudate Pueri_ almost "swings". Wonderful performance. And people forget that Beethoven wrote his share of potboilers for one reason or another, while I can't think of anything that Mozart wrote that I would consider a potboiler, though I'm sure his critics probably can. I thoroughly enjoy both men for their shortcomings as well as their genius, and I believe there's such a thing as a genius in this world of music, who's talent and existence cannot exactly be explained because we are not supposed to know but to enjoy their contributions for a sometimes stressed and suffering humanity.


----------



## DavidA

Fritz Kobus said:


> Mozart for pleasure. Beethoven for serious listening.


This used to be a popular view among Victorians before we quite realised the sheer genius of Mozart . Beethoven, btw, would have disagreed with your statement! After hearing a rehearsal of K491, Beethoven reportedly remarked to a colleague that "[w]e shall never be able to do anything like that."


----------

