# Why do people dislike Mozart?



## millionrainbows

Personally, he's one of my favorite composers. It seems that while most classical music fans like expressive and emotionally charged 'Dionysian' music, a lot of them do not like when composers exemplify the ordered 'Apollonian' side of things. 

An an example of what I mean, Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' is an example of a piece that leans towards the expressive, Dionysian side.

Mozart (with Brahms) is representative of the 'order' side (though maybe 'order' isn't the best word)...and 
I like Stravinsky, but sometimes I find him to be too unconstrained and wild, evoking fear and terror. 
At other times I love that about him. 

People don't give enough respect to the ordering, calming power of music. To me there is something sublime about the order and balance of Mozart's piano concertos.


----------



## Ukko

^ ^ Yeah, 'order' doesn't quite fit, but I can't come up with a better word; maybe 'seeming order' (because order exists in Stravinsky too). That sensing of order in contrasting styles occurs in every period, eh? JS Bach evoked it, Biber often did not.

Maybe it's the Stirring of the Humours that Mozart usually avoids, and that people want to be there?


----------



## joen_cph

I am not sure I agree about the emotional restraint in Mozart´s works. If you botanize and listen carefully to Mozart´s pieces, there are lots of moods replacing each other continuously, almost from bar to bar, and the apparent lyricism can have a deeper, even tragic aspect at times. The slow movement of the d-minor concerto and the slow movement and the finale of the "Jeunehomme" concerto are obvious examples. HIP-recordings (or simply boring musicianship) perhaps tend to communicate this in a less obvious or a more disguised way than a more "romantic" perception of Mozart. But taking a couple of further, well-known examples in the oeuvre: the massive darkness of "Don Giovanni"-ouverture versus the refined naivety of the finale of the 27th Piano Concerto; the stormy restlessness of the beginning of the 25th Symphony versus the pompous progression of "Haffner"-Symphony, or the serenity of the slow movement of the "Jupiter"; the questioning intimacy of the piano fantasias versus the playfulness of the "Rondo alla Turca", etc. etc. ... 

I can only explain not liking him as the result of 1) a lack of knowledge of the diversity of his works 2) a complaint about certain observed patterns of predictability or repeats in some of these works 3) a general prejudice about the servility of the composers of the period, or influence from media caricatures such as that presented in the "Amadeus"-movie.


----------



## millionrainbows

Hilltroll72 said:


> Maybe it's the Stirring of the Humours that Mozart usually avoids, and that people want to be there?


I think you're on to something there. In that sense, Mozart is not trying to "represent" or evoke feelings as overtly as some other composers; he's letting us see the "abstract" non-representational aspect of music through its pure formal means and devices. With Mozart, I think "emotion" as a descriptive term begins to fail us.

Excluding his operas, in many instances of Mozart, the "evoking" of dramatic emotion, and dramatic gesture is absent (but certainly not always). Mozart evokes for me, a sort of "Platonic classicism" in his Klavierstücke; we must put aside our need for drama and overt emotion, and listen on the level of "pure abstraction," an enjoyment of color, sound, and timbre itself. In this sense, Mozart is the ultimate modernist. His music is "abstract expressionism" (when divorced from drama and opera).


----------



## ptr

..isn't he, you know, just old news, you know, the kids, you know, just don't care about that old music from like before 2011, you know, that old stuff, you know, like, you know, ain't goin' anywhere, you know.. But, you know, he's almost, you know, as cute as Justin the Biib, you know, you know (pun intended!)

BTW, love his music, but in small doses! Find much of the pre adolescent stuff kind of generic, but much of the later is smashing!

/ptr


----------



## Feathers

I love Mozart, but I can see why people wouldn't like him.

The whole idea of a prodigy turning into a childlike adult (which doesn't represent the whole of Mozart at all) may not appeal to some people as opposed to the "tortured genius" and other "musical personalities". Also, balance and beauty may not appeal to people as much as more extreme types of expression. Sometimes I feel like Mozart "spoils" our ears with beauty, and we take it for granted, as if it doesn't count as a trait of "impressive music".

In general though, I think Mozart is just so famous that people have not only high but also specific expectations for him, including things like intense counterpoint, bold chromaticism, and extreme emotional strain. When these expectations aren't met, people put him in the category of overrated composers. These expectations are often too directional and specific, and they represent only a "pre-packaged" view of brilliant music. But of course, I'm generalizing a little bit.


----------



## jani

If someone who calls him/herself as a fan of classical hates his work, he/she hasn't listened to enough of his music.
He wrote so much music, its very versatile, there must be at least few works that you like!


----------



## Kieran

I don't know why anyone would dislike him, but I'm sure over-saturation and his unchallenged position as the musical default setting (alongside one or two others) brings the hackles out in some. It's as if familiarity truly has bred some contempt, and it has nothing to do with the music, and more to do with the followers, or the dogma, or the everywhere-ness of the brand.

For me, I skip all this. Mozart is one of the most expressive of composers, but he's like the guy you meet who you mistake for being cheerful until you spend some time with him, and then you see how discreet he is: you don't realise until some awful moment just how tragically sad he actually can be. Not in all his music: Eine Kleine Nachtmusik being one of those compositions for the court that people mistakenly think reveal his inner frivolousness or shallowness.

For me, being a pre-Romantic composer means the music isn't about the man, but it's about the circumstance. He didn't write to purge himself, but to fulfill commissions. He loads his music so miraculously because he was an inspired genius, but his musical brief wasn't to inform or to create a cathartic, confessional work that would explain to us just how unhappy he was. He composed to order, and tailored his music to the availabilities and talents of those who would perform it. He wrote his arias specifically for the voice that would immediately perform them, not for posterity. There's no great presence of the ego in Mozart's work, no explicit ejaculations of pain, no arm-sweeping moments of his own inner angst, and yet all drama and emotion is contained in his music because he both knew how to compose works which were terrifically charged, but also immensely rich and subtle, yielding up differently satisfying reactions to the same work, when listened to over a period of time.

He's easy to dismiss! It's very easy to call him 'light' or to take on board the myth that he was an immature child-hooligan with a hotline to the angels, but the truth is that he was hard-working, conscientious, and very well-educated. Since his death, people have struggled with how to understand Mozart, and the error-filled Romantic concept of Mozart as being somehow 'one of them' has dogged him unsuccessfully ever since. I think it's held against him that he was plainly an establishment figure, while it's forgotten that this is because that's _exactly_ where the work was, and at the end of the day, he was a working musician...


----------



## Sudonim

I have no doubt that there are many classical music listeners who are honestly underwhelmed by his music, but I think in some cases it's people just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

You see this in every genre of music, and in every art form for that matter. If there is an artist whom "everybody" likes, or who is "too popular," someone will try to knock that artist down just to show how against-the-grain their thinking is, how they refuse to follow the masses, etc. It's a form of snobbery. I've seen threads on Amazon about how the Beatles were seriously overrated, and you can see it here sometimes when people say the same about Beethoven, Bach, and so on. I have no doubt there are threads on the Internet somewhere about what a hack writer Shakespeare was.

AGain, I'm not saying this is the case for all Mozart-bashing, nor even for most of it. But it does exist.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mozart shows us that the more music becomes concerned with "expressing emotion," the less it becomes concerned with the formal elements of music themselves, which are true, pure, "abstract" musical meanings, not so much emotions. We could call these "states of being" rather than overt emotion.

Much overt "emotion" in "emotional" music is simply "dramatic gesture," which is in a sense empty, is non-essential, and can even be faked or over-done. 
I'm not saying this is bad, because, after all, "art is artifice." Instrumental music, "musical sound", when divorced from "literal action" and drama, lost its connection to _explicit_ meaning, and was revealed for what it otherwise is: a non-representational (abstract) medium.

In instrumental Romanticism, although it was music divorced from drama, it still managed to evoke emotion, and had residual traces of drama, accomplished by means of "dramatic gestures."

As an example, I could take "Mary Had a Little Lamb," change it to a minor key, and get Itzhak Perlman to play it on violin. I guarantee you this little ditty would gain profound emotion.

The Mozart Piano Sonata No. 16 in C major, K. 545 "Sonata Facile": what "emotion" does this evoke? It is "playful" and brings delight, but even its nickname ("Sonata Facile") reveals that it is considered more a motoric display of technique rather than a vehicle for Mozart's "feelings." In this sense, it is very "modern" in its detachment. The piece, and much of Mozart, manages to evoke an _*affect*_ in us, a "state of being," without using any overt narrative or dramatic content.


----------



## dionisio

What's the problem with the music beign Dionysian?


----------



## sharik

millionrainbows said:


> Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' is an example of a piece that leans towards the expressive, Dionysian side. Mozart (with Brahms) is representative of the 'order' side


to me the 40th is quite a violent piece of music, if properly played.


----------



## Mahlerian

dionisio said:


> What's the problem with the music being Dionysian?


Nothing, except when you want to take that principle and apply it to music, like Mozart's, where it really doesn't belong.

Mozart's music is fine on its own terms. Composers from the Romantic era (except perhaps Schumann or Berlioz) often admired its craft and high spirits. Contemporary composers continue to find much to love in it, and the public has, in the past century especially, grown to love it more than ever.


----------



## millionrainbows

dionisio said:


> What's the problem with the music beign Dionysian?


Like I said, many people like the Dionysian, but I think as you get older, and you're living more on the edge of your nerves, you begin to appreciate the more subtle, balancing, calming, Apollonian side, as does your best friend, a cat.


----------



## Tapkaara

This is a question people are not allowed to answer. Moving right along...


----------



## Sonata

> People don't give enough respect to the ordering, calming power of music. To me there is something sublime about the order and balance of Mozart's piano concertos.


Really? I think there are plenty of people who respect that. for example, take a look at how many of his piano concertos are in the "Top keyboard concerto" list here, with Mozart's 20 being the #1 concerto.


----------



## Ravndal

For me it has nothing to do with Mozart, but it's the whole era i dislike - And i don't find it calming, i find it stressful.


----------



## jani

Sonata said:


> Really? I think there are plenty of people who respect that. for example, take a look at how many of his piano concertos are in the "Top keyboard concerto" list here, with Mozart's 20 being the #1 concerto.


I find the first and third movement of that concerto pretty fiery.


----------



## neoshredder

The Classical Era can get predictable at times. That goes for Mozart as well. But I still love it.


----------



## Sonata

Kieran said:


> For me, being a pre-Romantic composer means the music isn't about the man, but it's about the circumstance. He didn't write to purge himself, but to fulfill commissions. He loads his music so miraculously because he was an inspired genius, but his musical brief wasn't to inform or to create a cathartic, confessional work that would explain to us just how unhappy he was. He composed to order, and tailored his music to the availabilities and talents of those who would perform it. He wrote his arias specifically for the voice that would immediately perform them, not for posterity. There's no great presence of the ego in Mozart's work, no explicit ejaculations of pain, no arm-sweeping moments of his own inner angst, and yet all drama and emotion is contained in his music because he both knew how to compose works which were terrifically charged, but also immensely rich and subtle, yielding up differently satisfying reactions to the same work, when listened to over a period of time.
> 
> I think it's held against him that he was plainly an establishment figure, while it's forgotten that this is because that's _exactly_ where the work was, and at the end of the day, he was a working musician...


I think you bring up some excellent points. In essence, art is about self-expression, but not ONLY about self-expression. He was a composer by trade, this was his livelihood, so YES he gave his patrons what they wanted. He was being a professional, his patrons at THAT time, were not looking to have hearkenings of his inner turmoils.

I guess what I'm saying is, while the starving tortured artist notion is all well and good, there is nothing wrong with a 
1) well-fed and well-adjusted artist or 2) a starving tortured artist who does not wish to make art about torture and starvation.


----------



## neoshredder

Ravndal said:


> For me it has nothing to do with Mozart, but it's the whole era i dislike - And i don't find it calming, i find it stressful.


How is it stressful? When I look to relax, the Classical Era comes to mind right away.


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> How is it stressful? When I look to relax, the Classical Era comes to mind right away.


I can relax just as easily to Schoenberg or Webern as Mozart's more turbulent pieces. It's different for different people.

I think that people being "unable to relax" hearing something is more a sign that they cannot predict what will happen with any accuracy than anything else.


----------



## neoshredder

Mahlerian said:


> I can relax just as easily to Schoenberg or Webern as Mozart's more turbulent pieces. It's different for different people.
> 
> I think that people being "unable to relax" hearing something is more a sign that they cannot predict what will happen with any accuracy than anything else.


Well I listen to more modern music for experimental reason. But I hardly find that music relaxing. The heavy dissonance of more modern music is the obvious reason. And yes I know Mozart has some pieces with dissonance as well. You don't need to show me examples of that. But the pleasantness of most of his music is relaxing.


----------



## Ravndal

neoshredder said:


> How is it stressful? When I look to relax, the Classical Era comes to mind right away.


Can't explain it. If i want to relax, i visit debussy, ravel, chopin, grieg etc.

I am trying my best to like the era though.


----------



## Daimonion

My problem, as a complete beginner in the field, is that I find Mozart too bright (and somehow joyful) for my taste. It obiously refers to those pieces of his music that I know. The order itself is not a problem - I am a great fan of Bach...


----------



## Sonata

Ravndal said:


> Can't explain it. If i want to relax, i visit debussy, *ravel, chopin, grieg* etc.
> 
> I am trying my best to like the era though.


Totally agree on these three. I don't find Mozart or classical era always relaxing. But those violin sonatas of his.....ahhh, very soothing.


----------



## neoshredder

Daimonion said:


> My problem, as a complete beginner in the field, is that I find Mozart too bright (and somehow joyful) for my taste. It obiously refers to those pieces of his music that I know. The order itself is not a problem - I am a great fan of Bach...


Some of Mozart's music is downright melancholy. So yeah happiness and sorrow are definitely big parts of Mozart's music.


----------



## Daimonion

neoshredder said:


> Some of Mozart's music is downright melancholy. So yeah happiness and sorrow are definitely big parts of Mozart's music.


Could you please give me the references to this mleancholic music - I would be happy (sad? ;-)) to explore it...


----------



## Mahlerian

Daimonion said:


> Could you please give me the references to this mleancholic music - I would be happy (sad? ;-)) to explore it...


The middle movement of the excellent Piano Concerto No. 23 in A. It's in the plaintive key of F-sharp minor.



Neoshredder said:


> The heavy dissonance of more modern music is the obvious reason.


There are chords that would have been considered extremely dissonant in the classical era that just sound beautiful to me. Debussy uses lots of extended dominants: 9ths, 11ths, 13ths, and so forth. I also enjoy quartal chords. It has much more to do with context than with the actual sound. If any of those beautiful chords showed up in Mozart, they would sound horrific.


----------



## neoshredder

Here is the link. Piano Concerto 20 first movement as well.


----------



## Daimonion

Thank you very much! (I will listen to it soon. I am at work now and cannot do it straight away;-))


----------



## Kieran

Sometimes in Mozart's great simplicity is contained also great depth...


----------



## Kieran

Daimonion said:


> Could you please give me the references to this mleancholic music - I would be happy (sad? ;-)) to explore it...


I don't know if this could be called melancholic - to me it's that and something else besides, maybe frustrated or disturbed, but in that typically beautiful Mozartean way: the beauty isn't lessened by the passion, and the passion isn't reduced by the beauty...


----------



## Arsakes

So is it another Chaos vs Order struggle between Stravinsky and Mozart?

Maybe the answer is that some fans don't like the claimed Number ones like Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc. ... but I'm not one of them.

Some may say his music is cheesy (also wrong).


----------



## Mahlerian

Arsakes said:


> So is it another Chaos vs Order struggle between Stravinsky and Mozart?


Not necessarily. Some of us have both of these composers in our top ten!


----------



## Eschbeg

millionrainbows said:


> In that sense, Mozart is not trying to "represent" or evoke feelings as overtly as some other composers; he's letting us see the "abstract" non-representational aspect of music through its pure formal means and devices.


I agree that Mozart's music is not always trying to evoke emotion as explicitly as other composers before or after him, but I disagree that the music is therefore "abstract" and "non-representational." Mozart's music, both instrumental and vocal alike, consists of a dense web of references and allusions that 18th century listeners would have recognized and that today's listeners are slowly starting to recover. Most of these references are rhythmic in nature, referring to specific dances, but many of them extend beyond dance. The classic example is the K. 332 piano sonata, which is a veritable tapestry of references, one after the other: vocal style (single-note melody over Alberti bass), learned style (imitation), military fanfare, _Sturm und Drang_, waltz, etc. The main theme of the first movement of the K. 331 piano sonata is a siciliana. In the first movement of the K. 456 piano concerto, the first theme is a military march while the second theme is a pastorale. These may not be "emotional" markers, but nor are they "non-representational." The site I linked to above contains a reference to a marvelous book that shows how Mozart's musical codes had commonly understood social connotations--the haughty, aristocratic associations of the minuet versus the rustic, human world of the gavotte, etc.--which, once recognized, make the music anything but "abstract."


----------



## Ukko

^ ^ The book you recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Rhythmic-Gesture-Mozart-Jamison-Allanbrook/dp/0226014045

sounds interesting. The price does not.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eschbeg said:


> I agree that Mozart's music is not always trying to evoke emotion as explicitly as other composers before or after him, but I disagree that the music is therefore "abstract" and "non-representational." Mozart's music, both instrumental and vocal alike, consists of a dense web of references and allusions that 18th century listeners would have recognized and that today's listeners are slowly starting to recover. Most of these references are rhythmic in nature, referring to specific dances, but many of them extend beyond dance. The classic example is the K. 332 piano sonata, which is a veritable tapestry of references, one after the other: vocal style (single-note melody over Alberti bass), learned style (imitation), military fanfare, _Sturm und Drang_, waltz, etc. The main theme of the first movement of the K. 331 piano sonata is a siciliana. In the first movement of the K. 456 piano concerto, the first theme is a military march while the second theme is a pastorale. These may not be "emotional" markers, but nor are they "non-representational." The site I linked to above contains a reference to a marvelous book that shows how Mozart's musical codes had commonly understood social connotations--the haughty, aristocratic associations of the minuet versus the rustic, human world of the gavotte, etc.--which, once recognized, make the music anything but "abstract."


Those are good points, Eschbeg. You admit that "..these may not be "emotional" markers, but you contend that they are still not abstract or "non-representational." But these "social references" fall outside the domain of "pure nuts and bolts" of music, and are, well, _extra-musical._ So for me, your observations are not at odds with my point, that Mozart is a "formalist." While the exposition of different dance rhythms may have extra "resonance" with social meaning, it is still a "musical exposition" rather than a "dramatic gesture."

Actually, the point could be made that the book you mentioned, and this socio/historical approach is a desperate attempt to give Mozart's "purely abstract" music some connections which listeners can grasp on to. This sounds like the work of historians.


----------



## Llyranor

I used to find Mozart overrated when my knowledge of classical music was still fledging/immature. Now, it's somewhat more developed, slightly, but my appreciation of Mozart has increased tremendously.


----------



## Eschbeg

millionrainbows said:


> Actually, the point could be made that the book you mentioned, and this socio/historical approach is a desperate attempt to give Mozart's "purely abstract" music some connections which listeners can grasp on to. This sounds like the work of historians.


I would describe it in reverse: the desire to make Mozart a "formalist" is part of a desire to make him conform to twentieth and twenty-first century standards rather than eighteenth century standards. Tellingly, a contemporary of Haydn once described sonata form and the newfangled genre of the symphony (both of which, from our modern perspective, are the very bedrock of "formalism") as a kind of distilled opera because the rich musical surface of allusions reminded him of the many personalities in an opera buffa. There's also Johann Mattheson's fascinating treatise _Der volkommene Capellmeister_ in which eighteenth century dances are explicitly associated with personality types. (My favorite line: "The _loures_, or slow and dotted gigues, by contrast, exhibit a proud and pompous character, which makes them very popular in Spain.")

So you are correct that this type of interpretation is the work of historians, since they are trying to distinguish historical interpretations of Mozart from our current formalist ones. Not that we aren't entitled to our own interpretations of Mozart, or that I'm not sympathetic to them. I just prefer not to confuse them with the eighteenth century's interpretations, in which the "rather than" in the following statement...



millionrainbows said:


> While the exposition of different dance rhythms may have extra "resonance" with social meaning, it is still a "musical exposition" *rather than* a "dramatic gesture."


...would mostly likely have been closer to "as well as."


----------



## GGluek

I think it's as much a question of programmers (concert programmers, radio programmers, recording A&R people) sometimes putting the name over the quality of the work. When you have a 500+ ouvre, and a lot of it is juvenilia, a lot of music gets played by virtue of the name, and so a lot of lesser or uninteresting pieces share the stage with the masterworks -- which are as good as any music ever written. Unless you're a musicologist or a fanatic, the first two dozen symphonies, for instance, are worth maybe one listening in a lifetime. If the horn concerti weren't for a treacherous and beloved instrument, they are not musically interesting enough to be as popular as they are. i.e. I won't say there's a lot of "bad" Mozart, but there is a lot of, especially early, work that doesn't hold one's interest for long. And some of it -- I mean Eine Kleine Nachtmusik -- is grossly over-played.


----------



## KenOC

GGluek said:


> Unless you're a musicologist or a fanatic, the first two dozen symphonies, for instance, are worth maybe one listening in a lifetime. If the horn concerti weren't for a treacherous and beloved instrument, they are not musically interesting enough to be as popular as they are.


Uh... (speechless)


----------



## GGluek

KenOC said:


> Uh... (speechless)


I never said I didn't hold unpopular opinions.


----------



## KenOC

GGluek said:


> I never said I didn't hold unpopular opinions.


Please don't misunderstand. I was merely dumbstruck by the keen inciseveness of your pronouncements.


----------



## Guest

Some very interesting and enlightened comments on this thread have brought me back to TC for the discussion!! (Can do without invective and slurs, though.)

For the life of me I cannot imagine any artist/composer NOT writing from his own heart. How a piece of music which is tender, joyful, sombre, humorous etc. can NOT have come from the mind and heart of its creator defies me. If not from the composer, then from whom? A muse external to the composer? No matter WHAT the reason for the composition, a work of art must originate inside the head of its own creator and those notes on the page may be interpreted as a direct line of emotion from composer to listener. Without emotion music is fairly dull. This is the problem with the avant garde - emotion is missing, and so are audiences. And lots of people in this thread have used words like "melancholy", "moving" - these are emotional terms and trying to reduce emotion and an 18th century view of "romanticism" (which classical composers were called in their own times) is like trying to remove water from ice. And I cannot ever imagine music being merely 'formalist'. This was just the bottle which held the wine. Try not to compare Mozart with anybody else. The fact that he was a working musician, like The Beatles, does not invalidate his own self being present in the music. Perhaps Bach can be said to have written music which doesn't represent his own feelings, but his feelings about God are certainly present in much of his work. Are they to be denied as 'feelings' and 'emotions' because they are about God?

In removing Mozart and his own feelings from his music is to reduce it to a porcelain statue. Cold, highly polished and sculpted, eternal but deeply superficial. Like Keats' _Grecian Urn_: "beauty is truth; truth beauty. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know". A disturbing thought!!

Personally, I long for complexity in my music - not 'sublime' simplicity. This is a personal preference. Yesterday I presented a 2 hour lecture on late Beethoven and concentrated on the last piano sonatas and the Grosse Fugue. Those late works, with their complex counterpoint, fugue and infinite workings out of the smallest kernel of musical material are tremendously satisfying listening. You are always on the journey and I marvel at the intellectuality of the work. And Haydn was his model for all of this.


----------



## SottoVoce

The only person who I have respected and who have had qualms with Mozart's music is Glenn Gould. And I don't think it'd be far to say that Glenn is something like the Leo Tolstoy of music... in the most endearing sense of the label. It's needed for every artform to stop a deep hero worship.

But most of the time when I hear people criticize Mozart just because his music doesn't fit their certain view of what music is bent on doing, I usually conclude that they know nothing about music. I think a real maturing factor in appreciating art in general is appreciating the importance of form, not form in itself, but the form that carries out the sublimity of the artwork. Something subtle and doesn't make quite a fuss. Bertrand Russell used to always say, although this is in philosophy, that it is much easier to sound profound than clear; I think it fits equally well for music. Not only does Mozart have form, but Mozart has just as much propensity to the sublime as any of the most expressive of the Late Romantics; not just simple sublimity either, Mozart was considered one of the most learned composers of his time, and his work is rife with very complex counterpoint, but of a different kind than the rigor of Bach or the angularity of Beethoven. It astounds me on how someone could listen to the Clarinet Quintet or some of those great slow movements of the Piano Concertos and not feel the transcendental quality of his music.

And I'm not the only one defending this old fortress. Listen to Arnie make my point much better than I ever could've done:






"I have learned this directly from Mozart... and I am proud of it." Makes you realize how much of that talk of the modernists trying to break away from the Western tradition is such hogwash.


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> ...Perhaps Bach can be said to have written music which doesn't represent his own feelings, but his feelings about God are certainly present in much of his work. Are they to be denied as 'feelings' and 'emotions' because they are about God?


This is a good reinforcing example of what I'm talking about; in Bach's day, notes were "on" or "off," as with harpsichords and organs. We know from HIP instruments & recordings that Bach's was not a Romantic era of hyper-expression. The lacl of dynamics reduced the incidences of "dramatic gesture," so the "emotion" that Bach expressed had to be accomplished in other ways: tempo fluctuations, register changes, and harmonic turns in the written music itself.

"Dramatic gesture" in the form of "performance gesture" is almost absent from his organ works, comparatively speaking: dynamics, register changes, and the music's inherent harmonic expressiveness was all there was. This puts the onus directly on the music itself: which is what I mean by "formalism," a music which deals mainly with the _perceptible forms of the music itself,_ in terms of actual musical elements, like pitch and harmonic movement and meaning.



Eschbeg said:


> I would describe it in reverse: the desire to make Mozart a "formalist" is part of a desire to make him conform to twentieth and twenty-first century standards rather than eighteenth century standards.


If we approach Mozart as a formalist, then his art & appeal are universal and safe from becoming products of their era. While the historical approach is admirable in scholarly terms, we could know those details after the fact, and it might add to our enjoyment, or not. For me, music is a visceral experience, not a cerebral one.



Eschbeg said:


> Tellingly, a contemporary of Haydn once described sonata form and the newfangled genre of the symphony (both of which, from our modern perspective, are the very bedrock of "formalism") as a kind of distilled opera because the rich musical surface of allusions reminded him of the many personalities in an opera buffa.


This sounds like the contemporary was immersed in drama and the dramatic arts moreso than music itself. If this is what it's all about, then why not listen to opera? Of course, in instrumental forms there is a residue of "dramatic gesture," but Haydn's symphonies are more "musical gesture." Is my point emerging more clearly?



Eschbeg said:


> There's also Johann Mattheson's fascinating treatise _Der volkommene Capellmeister_ in which eighteenth century dances are explicitly associated with personality types. (My favorite line: "The _loures_, or slow and dotted gigues, by contrast, exhibit a proud and pompous character, which makes them very popular in Spain.")


So, with this information, I guess we are to make colorful masks to wear whilst listening.



Eschbeg said:


> So you are correct that this type of interpretation is the work of historians, since they are trying to distinguish historical interpretations of Mozart from our current formalist ones. Not that we aren't entitled to our own interpretations of Mozart, or that I'm not sympathetic to them. I just prefer not to confuse them with the eighteenth century's interpretations, in which the "rather than" in the following statement...would mostly likely have been closer to "as well as."


We agree that these are two different approaches, then; the formalist looks at the universal constants of the works, those things which will remain "true" throughout time, while the historian strives for greater understanding by seeing the full context, trying to penetrate the composer's intentions, to capture the spirit of the work. Both are valid & proven methods.


----------



## millionrainbows

SottoVoce said:


> The only person who I have respected and who have had qualms with Mozart's music is Glenn Gould. And I don't think it'd be far to say that Glenn is something like the Leo Tolstoy of music... in the most endearing sense of the label. It's needed for every artform to stop a deep hero worship...But most of the time when I hear people criticize Mozart just because his music doesn't fit their certain view of what music is bent on doing, I usually conclude that they know nothing about music. I think a real maturing factor in appreciating art in general is appreciating the importance of *form,* not form in itself, but *the form that carries out the sublimity of the artwork.* Something *subtle* and d*oesn't make quite a fuss.* Bertrand Russell used to always say, although this is in philosophy, that it is much easier to sound profound than* clear;* I think it fits equally well for music. Not only does Mozart have form, but Mozart has just as much propensity to the *sublime* as any of the most expressive of the Late Romantics; not just simple sublimity either, Mozart was considered one of the most learned composers of his time, and his work is rife with very complex counterpoint, but of a different kind than the rigor of Bach or the angularity of Beethoven. It astounds me on how someone could listen to the Clarinet Quintet or some of those great slow movements of the Piano Concertos and not *feel the transcendental quality of his music...*.And I'm not the only one defending this old fortress. Listen to Arnie make my point much better than I ever could've done: "I have learned this directly from Mozart... and I am proud of it." _Makes you realize how much of that talk of the modernists trying to break away from the Western tradition is such hogwash._


Nice Schoenberg video! I agree, and point out that in Mozart, we are confronted not so much with "emotion" or dramatic gesture as we are _induced into a state of being_ which is not dependent on narrative content or associations evoked by "dramatically representational" elements or gestures. This is art at its most "minimal" and elegant.

Many people wonder why Schoenberg did not continue along the lines of Verklarte Nacht, and that piece is just full of dramatic gesture, almost literally illustrating the poem it depicts. I guess Arnie outgrew "representation" and went into more abstract territory. His career illustrates very well the "Dionysian" and "Apollonian" aspects of music in a very clear, jarring manner.


----------



## SottoVoce

millionrainbows said:


> I agree, and point out that in Mozart, we are confronted not so much with "emotion" or dramatic gesture as we are _induced into a state of being_ which is not dependent on narrative content or associations evoked by "dramatically representational" elements or gestures. This is art at its most "minimal" and elegant.


I think this is why some people called Mozart's G Minor Symphony "a work of Grecian grace and elegance" (Schumann) and "a work of upmost grief" (Rosen). It's because Mozart, like all great art, doesn't get caught up in trying to express just one single emotion, but a much more mysterious quality of them. As Edward Cone said in his wonderful essay, "The G Minor Symphony is so broad in its expressive potential that it fits like a glove to multiple interpretations." I think this is similar to Beethoven's last period, in that he can such a tragic fugue and such a sprightly dance in the same work, such as in the 14th String Quartet; like Pope Benedict said of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, "it contains all of human existence". This is similar to Strauss's Metamorphses, Mahler's 9th, and Bach's Art of Fugue; they are all, as Glenn Gould said particularly about the Strauss, "asexual"


----------



## millionrainbows

SottoVoce said:


> I think this is why some people called Mozart's G Minor Symphony "a work of Grecian grace and elegance" (Schumann) and "a work of upmost grief" (Rosen). It's because Mozart, like all great art, *doesn't get caught up in trying to express just one single emotion,* but a much more *mysterious quality* of them. As Edward Cone said in his wonderful essay, "The G Minor Symphony is so broad in its expressive potential that it fits like a glove to multiple interpretations." I think this is similar to Beethoven's last period, in that he can such a tragic fugue and such a sprightly dance in the same work, such as in the 14th String Quartet; like Pope Benedict said of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, *"it contains all of human existence".* This is similar to Strauss's Metamorphses, Mahler's 9th, and Bach's Art of Fugue; they are all, as Glenn Gould said particularly about the Strauss, "asexual"


Yes, this emotional "vagueness" is what I'm referring to as "states of being." It becomes deeper than dramatic representation of emotion, or at least we have revealed the inadequacy of the term "emotion" to describe the "mapping of experience and states of being" which are transmitted to us empathetically by the composer.


----------



## Guest

SottoVoce said:


> I think this is why some people called Mozart's G Minor Symphony "a work of Grecian grace and elegance" (Schumann) and "a work of upmost grief" (Rosen). It's because Mozart, like all great art, doesn't get caught up in trying to express just one single emotion, but a much more mysterious quality of them. As Edward Cone said in his wonderful essay, "The G Minor Symphony is so broad in its expressive potential that it fits like a glove to multiple interpretations." I think this is similar to Beethoven's last period, in that he can such a tragic fugue and such a sprightly dance in the same work, such as in the 14th String Quartet; like Pope Benedict said of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, "it contains all of human existence". This is similar to Strauss's Metamorphses, Mahler's 9th, and Bach's Art of Fugue; they are all, as Glenn Gould said particularly about the Strauss, "asexual"


How can a work have "utmost grief" if not permeated with emotional content? And if the emotion didn't come from the composer, who then? The person standing next to him?

Also, there's a fair bit of gobbledygook flying around when talking about "representation" and "formalism". Music has emotion or it has not. And that emotion is the subjective response of the listener, many of whom won't be worried about matters of form (indeed, most). But nobody can derive emotion from a text if there isn't any there to begin with. I quote from a famous 1948 film, "The Red Shoes". Ballet impresario Boris Lermentov says, "nobody can pull a rabbit from a hat unless there is already a rabbit in the hat".

And as for being "induced into a state of being". That's an interesting metaphor about EMOTION. We could start a debate about ontology, but I think it entirely unnecessary to prove this point about music and its emotional connection from composer to listener.

And I disagree strongly with the connection between Mozart's G Minor symphony and Beethoven's late period. Oh, there is one point of similarity: the word "late". I also disagree with Pope Benedict saying Mozart's Clarinet Concerto "contains all of human existence". That sounds like metaphysical rhetoric to my ears. He may have heard something different in that work to somebody like me, yes, but he has used a great deal of hyperbole to describe something which is, after all, his subjective judgment. I don't know any work of art, save for the entire oeuvre of Shakespeare, which could even possibly "contain all of human existence". And what would a cloistered priest know about "all of human existence"? I think he just needed to get out more!!:lol:

(Here's a great new book, by Daniel Barenboim, about Beethoven and Courage. All works of art are 'cathartic" in some way. Daniel talks about it:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/beethoven-and-quality-courage/)

Clarification: I do not "dislike" Mozart. He's down on my "list" at about number 20.


----------



## Guest

Some notes on catharsis:

*Intellectual clarification*

In the twentieth century something like a paradigm shift took place in the interpretation of catharsis with a number of scholars contributing to the argument in support of the intellectual clarification concept. The following works can be usefully consulted in this regard: L. Golden, "Aristotle on Tragic and Comic Mimesis," Atlanta, 1992, S. Halliwell, "Aristotle's Poetics," London, 1986, D. Keesey, "On Some Recent Interpretations of Catharsis, "The Classical World", (1979) 72.4, 193-205. The clarification theory of catharsis would be fully consistent, as other interpretations are not, with Aristotle's argument in chapter 4 of the Poetics (1448b4-17) that the essential pleasure of mimesis is the intellectual pleasure of "learning and inference".

It is generally understood that Aristotle's theory of mimesis and catharsis are responses to Plato's negative view of artistic mimesis on an audience. Plato argued that the most common forms of artistic mimesis were designed to evoke from an audience powerful emotions such as pity, fear, and ridicule which override the rational control that defines the highest level of our humanity and lead us to wallow unacceptably in orgies of emotion and passion. Aristotle's concept of catharsis, in all of the major senses attributed to it, contradicts Plato's view by providing a mechanism that generates the rational control of irrational emotions. All of the commonly held interpretations of catharsis, purgation, purification, and clarification are considered by most scholars to represent a homeopathic process in which pity and fear accomplish the catharsis of emotions like themselves. For an alternate view of catharsis as an allopathic process in which pity and fear produce a catharsis of emotions unlike pity and fear, see E. Belfiore, "Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion." Princeton, 1992, 260 ff.


----------



## Kieran

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Clarification: I do not "dislike" Mozart.


Of course not! He's just over-rated


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Of course not! He's just over-rated


Too-shay!!


----------



## DavidA

SottoVoce said:


> The only person who I have respected and who have had qualms with Mozart's music is Glenn Gould. And I don't think it'd be far to say that Glenn is something like the Leo Tolstoy of music... in the most endearing sense of the label. It's needed for every artform to stop a deep hero worship.
> 
> But most of the time when I hear people criticize Mozart just because his music doesn't fit their certain view of what music is bent on doing, I usually conclude that they know nothing about music. I think a real maturing factor in appreciating art in general is appreciating the importance of form, not form in itself, but the form that carries out the sublimity of the artwork. Something subtle and doesn't make quite a fuss. Bertrand Russell used to always say, although this is in philosophy, that it is much easier to sound profound than clear; I think it fits equally well for music. Not only does Mozart have form, but Mozart has just as much propensity to the sublime as any of the most expressive of the Late Romantics; not just simple sublimity either, Mozart was considered one of the most learned composers of his time, and his work is rife with very complex counterpoint, but of a different kind than the rigor of Bach or the angularity of Beethoven. It astounds me on how someone could listen to the Clarinet Quintet or some of those great slow movements of the Piano Concertos and not feel the transcendental quality of his music.
> 
> And I'm not the only one defending this old fortress. Listen to Arnie make my point much better than I ever could've done:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I have learned this directly from Mozart... and I am proud of it." Makes you realize how much of that talk of the modernists trying to break away from the Western tradition is such hogwash.


I think you'll find GG criticised Mozart for the same reasons. But he was being perverse. Even more so when he recorded the complete sonatas that he professed to dislike. No wonder he played them perversely. A reflection on how his mind was working towards the end of his life. I have a recording of a Mozart sonata he made in concert a lot earlier. It's beautifully played. But that didn't suit the crazy theory he later developed. Maybe he was mad after all?


----------



## Kieran

SottoVoce said:


> I think this is why some people called Mozart's G Minor Symphony "a work of Grecian grace and elegance" (Schumann) and "a work of upmost grief" (Rosen). It's because Mozart, like all great art, doesn't get caught up in trying to express just one single emotion, but a much more mysterious quality of them. As Edward Cone said in his wonderful essay, "The G Minor Symphony is so broad in its expressive potential that it fits like a glove to multiple interpretations." I think this is similar to Beethoven's last period, in that he can such a tragic fugue and such a sprightly dance in the same work, such as in the 14th String Quartet; like Pope Benedict said of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, "it contains all of human existence". This is similar to Strauss's Metamorphses, Mahler's 9th, and Bach's Art of Fugue; they are all, as Glenn Gould said particularly about the Strauss, "asexual"


Good post! Cheers... :tiphat:


----------



## Eschbeg

millionrainbows said:


> If we approach Mozart as a formalist, then his art & appeal are universal and safe from becoming products of their era... For me, music is a visceral experience, not a cerebral one.


Where we depart is that I don't see "visceral experience" and "cerebral experience" as incompatible. As a paradigm for music, that dichotomization doesn't date much further back than the late nineteenth century and doesn't really become widespread until the twentieth, which is why I ultimately don't see the formalist approach as "universal": it's as much a product of its era as any other approach. As I said, I have no problem making Mozart a product of our era in addition to making him a product of his, or any other. Music's meaning changes with each era, and that's a good thing: it's what keeps music alive. I just don't think one era's interpretation negates another, or that we have to choose between eras. To restrict ourselves to just one is to commit the very problem you seem to want (as I also do) to avoid.



millionrainbows said:


> If this is what it's *all* about, then why not listen to opera?


I could just as easily ask, "If the visceral experience was what it's _all_ about, then why did Haydn and Mozart write all those operas?" Neither question is terribly persuasive in favor of one approach or the other, I'm sure you'll agree. (Nor are they terribly relevant, since the source I was quoting never used the word "all.") The questions make sense only in a world where people restrict themselves to just one thing that they want to get out of all of music, and I can't think of any listeners--let alone composers--who do that. Do you?



millionrainbows said:


> We agree that these are two different approaches, then; the formalist looks at the universal constants of the works, those things which will remain "true" throughout time, while the historian strives for greater understanding by seeing the full context, trying to penetrate the composer's intentions, to capture the spirit of the work. Both are valid & proven methods.


Yes, I agree with all of that, except the claim to "universalism." I know you mean simply that the notes themselves remain "true" throughout time. No one disputes that. I'm just noting that there are not many eras in Western music history in which musicians focused only on the notes themselves. (Even Hanslick himself rejected the term "formalist.") So the actual _approach_ you describe is anything but universal.


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> How can a work have "utmost grief" if not permeated with emotional content? And if the emotion didn't come from the composer, who then? The person standing next to him?
> 
> Also, there's a fair bit of gobbledygook flying around when talking about "representation" and "formalism". Music has emotion or it has not. And that emotion is the subjective response of the listener, many of whom won't be worried about matters of form (indeed, most). But nobody can derive emotion from a text if there isn't any there to begin with.


Gobbledygook? Watch it! 

You say "emotion" is subjective, but then you go on to talk about it as if it "exists" in the music itself ("permeated with emotional content," "music has emotion or it has not"). This ambivalent stance needs clarification:

Music is a 2-way language of "signs," many times using conventions derived from drama, and agreed-upon, universal actions and reactions.

When SottoVoce quoted the observation that "Beethoven's last period, in (which) he can (have) such a tragic fugue and such a sprightly dance in the same work," should not surprise us; after all, this sort of "dramatic contrast" is a common technique in opera (and cartoons). Especially in Beethoven, into the Romantic era, this use of dramatic gesture became more and more used and commonplace.

The Baroque, and instrumental music before this, seems to have been more immune to drama; and this seems to be characteristic of the whole era, even oratorios, which are less dependent on dramatic action and gesture.



CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I also disagree with Pope Benedict saying Mozart's Clarinet Concerto "contains all of human existence". That sounds like metaphysical rhetoric to my ears. He may have heard something different in that work to somebody like me, yes, but he has used a great deal of hyperbole to describe something which is, after all, his subjective judgment. I don't know any work of art, save for the entire oeuvre of Shakespeare, which could even possibly "contain all of human existence".


Since music is a 2-way language of "signs," using agreed-upon, universal actions and reactions, which are derived from our common experience as human beings, then effective music is a "mapping" of shared experience with the audience. To say a single work contains "all of human existence" is an exaggeration, but the sentiment is accurate: this is what great art does.


----------



## Guest

I am coming late to this discussion, and am too lazy to read 4 pages worth of posts, so I am going to ignore all the ensuing discussion and just directly answer the question asked in the title - Why do people dislike Mozart?

I think the answer is simple - not everybody is identical. We all have different tastes, else there would not be such a vast diversity in virtually everything humans have created. Why do some people prefer red to green? Why do some people prefer to live in arctic climates while others prefer tropical ones? Why do some people enjoy fiction while others enjoy non-fiction? Why are some people politically liberal, while others are politically conservative? Why do some men prefer boxers, while others prefer briefs? The answer is that they just do. Most of the time, it has nothing to do with the objective quality of the thing - people just have different preferences.


----------



## millionrainbows

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Some notes on catharsis:
> 
> In the twentieth century something like a paradigm shift took place in the interpretation of catharsis with a number of scholars contributing to the argument in support of the intellectual clarification concept...Aristotle's argument in chapter 4 of the Poetics (1448b4-17) that the essential pleasure of mimesis is the intellectual pleasure of "learning and inference".
> 
> It is generally understood that Aristotle's theory of mimesis and catharsis are responses to *Plato's negative view* of artistic mimesis on an audience. Plato argued that the most common forms of artistic mimesis were designed to evoke from an audience powerful emotions such as *pity, fear, and ridicule *which override the rational control that defines the highest level of our humanity and lead us to wallow unacceptably in *orgies of emotion and passion.* Aristotle's concept of catharsis, in all of the major senses attributed to it, contradicts Plato's view by providing a mechanism that generates the rational control of irrational emotions. *All of the commonly held interpretations of catharsis, purgation, purification, and clarification are considered by most scholars to represent* a homeopathic process in which *pity and fear accomplish the catharsis of emotions like themselves.* For an alternate view of catharsis as an allopathic process in which pity and fear produce a catharsis of emotions unlike pity and fear, see E. Belfiore, "Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion." Princeton, 1992, 260 ff.


I'd say Plato's view caters to the lowest common denominator, more of a barroom "Give 'em what they want" spectacle, more grounded in dramatic convention and entertainment, and less on "art."

We can either use "representation" to merely depict those emotions and responses which are "concensus reality," or ART can evoke a universal, higher, transcendental "state of being" in us which is less dependent on "consensus meanings" and more of an "affect" which triggers a response from our "higher" selves.

And I'm not saying that artists have not accomplished both at the same time, as in Mozart's operas, and Shakespeare.

Like parables, drama is best served when it transcends its coarse meaning, and alludes to larger things. Shakespeare did this; he "gave 'em what they wanted," yet his stories managed to transcend their narrative boundaries, to become truly transcendent art.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eschbeg said:


> ...I ultimately don't see the formalist approach as "universal": it's as much a product of its era as any other approach.


But if we remove the work from its historical trappings, we see it more accurately for those qualities which transcend eras. And, as things change, this becomes a "constant" which is based on qualities of the art itself. These "constant qualities" express "human constants" as well: empathy, grief, death, love, etc.



Eschbeg said:


> The questions make sense only in a world where people restrict themselves to just one thing that they want to get out of all of music, and I can't think of any listeners--let alone composers--who do that. Do you?


I never said "one thing;" these universal constants are derived from experiencing life on this planet as a human being who lives and dies. I'd say those are "constants" which transcend any particular historico/social era. It sounds to me like _your_ approach is the "single-minded pursuit of the particular," while mine is the "single-minded pursuit of the universal."
:lol:



Eschbeg said:


> Yes, I agree with all of that, except the claim to "universalism." I know you mean simply that the notes themselves remain "true" throughout time. No one disputes that. I'm just noting that there are not many eras in Western music history in which musicians focused only on the notes themselves. (Even Hanslick himself rejected the term "formalist.") So the actual _approach_ you describe is anything but universal.


I think it _is_ universal, as well as being (more) purely musical. Of course, this is humans writing music for humans, so we should expect some degree of conflict and drama being conveyed, however abstractly. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> ...Why do people dislike Mozart? I think the answer is simple - not everybody is identical. We all have different tastes, else there would not be such a vast diversity in virtually everything humans have created. Why do some people prefer red to green? Why do some people prefer to live in arctic climates while others prefer tropical ones? Why do some people enjoy fiction while others enjoy non-fiction? Why are some people politically liberal, while others are politically conservative? Why do some men prefer boxers, while others prefer briefs? The answer is that they just do. Most of the time, it has nothing to do with the objective quality of the thing - people just have different preferences.


In spite of the phrasing of the thread title, you should assume that I am more concerned with commonalities: what makes Mozart universally respected as a great artist?...and by answering or arguing those points, we question or try to convince those critics who do not see Mozart this way, or at least try to provoke them into giving us a credible set of reasons why Mozart is unlikeable, at least to outsiders like them. :lol:

And BTW, why would anybody prefer Antarctica to The Bahamas? :lol:


----------



## SottoVoce

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> How can a work have "utmost grief" if not permeated with emotional content? And if the emotion didn't come from the composer, who then? The person standing next to him?


I never said that Mozart is not permeated with emotional content: quite the opposite actually, defending Mozart against those who say that he is not profoundly "emotional". But surely you would agree that the emotion of his works are of a different kind and a different way of expressing than the Late Romantics, a much more general way of expressing that is equally profound.



> And I disagree strongly with the connection between Mozart's G Minor symphony and Beethoven's late period.


I agree, they are generally of two different worlds and two different ways of looking at music. I think both of them have that mysterious quality of broad expressive content; I think that is why two greatly educated musicians were able to read completely different interpretations in both of them. They both don't get caught up in expressing the "garden-variety" emotions as Hanslick used to call them. I don't really know what they are expressing, but I think that is the quality that makes them great. As Einstein said, "The most beautiful thing in the world is the mysterious". I won't try to reduce these works to my own emotional biases. 


> I also disagree with Pope Benedict saying Mozart's Clarinet Concerto "contains all of human existence". That sounds like metaphysical rhetoric to my ears. He may have heard something different in that work to somebody like me, yes, but he has used a great deal of hyperbole to describe something which is, after all, his subjective judgment. I don't know any work of art, save for the entire oeuvre of Shakespeare, which could even possibly "contain all of human existence". And what would a cloistered priest know about "all of human existence"? I think he just needed to get out more!!:lol:


I don't think that he was being hyperbolic, because what he says about the Clarinet Quintet is similar to how I felt about it when I heard it, namely that is incredibly sensitive to the human condition. Like all arts, I think music wants to "say" something about the world, not be simply a cocktail of emotions. Mozart's music touches on this music, just like every great musician does. They are never fully emotivists or formalists, neither fully concerned with simply inducing emotion or making a "perfect" piece of art, but using both to "say something", in the most abstract use of the word. A quote from Mahler would do nicely here:

"If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."

I hope this clears some things up; I'm not trying to say that Mozart's music is emotionless, but people can't seem to get the fact that there is a different way of expression than the overt way we've been spoiled with. I am saying the opposite, Mozart's music is so emotional to be extremely profound, nothing like the fluffy and superficial claims he gets. He is emotional to the point of sublimity, to encompass our time here on Earth. I feel that way for a lot of other composers, but Mozart is certainly one of them. He entered a period, like Beethoven and Mahler and Bach, where the composer was not concerned to express any single emotion. Bertrand Russell, in one of his letters when writing the Principia, wrote that he wanted to create something that was neither good nor bad but simply said something, like the sea. He also called the Principa an artwork. I think he was getting at the same thing.


----------



## Mahlerian

SottoVoce said:


> Mozart's music touches on this music, just like every great musician does. They are never fully emotivists or formalists, neither fully concerned with simply inducing emotion or making a "perfect" piece of art, but using both to "say something", in the most abstract use of the word. A quote from Mahler would do nicely here:
> 
> "If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."
> 
> I hope this clears some things up; I'm not trying to say that Mozart's music is emotionless. I am saying the opposite, Mozart's music is so emotional to be extremely profound, nothing like the fluffy and superficial claims he gets.


La Grange notes that Mahler tended not to use great poetry for his song settings. He went for the naive, the unsophisticated, or (in the case of Das Lied von der Erde) the fragmentary. He reasons that Mahler did this because he wanted to set texts that he could add something to. A perfect poem does not need music, and the music would only intrude upon it. Des Knaben Wunderhorn is full of simple imagery and simple feelings, but by providing complex, nuanced settings, Mahler helps to open up the psychological world of these simple lyrics, both reflecting and undercutting their naive nature.

It would have been easy to simply take the route of weeping loudly or raging furiously in music when setting Ruckert's Kindertotenlieder. This mawkish sentimentality would have been far less effective, however, than the restrained settings that Mahler provided, which, while they do weep and rage, also express longing, remembered joy, and regret.


----------



## Guest

SottoVoce said:


> I never said that Mozart is not permeated with emotional content: quite the opposite actually, defending Mozart against those who say that he is not profoundly "emotional". But surely you would agree that the emotion of his works are of a different kind and a different way of expressing than the Late Romantics, a much more general way of expressing that is equally profound.
> 
> I agree, they are generally of two different worlds and two different ways of looking at music. I think both of them have that mysterious quality of broad expressive content; I think that is why two greatly educated musicians were able to read completely different interpretations in both of them. They both don't get caught up in expressing the "garden-variety" emotions as Hanslick used to call them. I don't really know what they are expressing, but I think that is the quality that makes them great. As Einstein said, "The most beautiful thing in the world is the mysterious". I won't try to reduce these works to my own emotional biases.
> 
> I don't think that he was being hyperbolic, because what he says about the Clarinet Quintet is similar to how I felt about it when I heard it, namely that is incredibly sensitive to the human condition. Like all arts, I think music wants to "say" something about the world, not be simply a cocktail of emotions. Mozart's music touches on this music, just like every great musician does. They are never fully emotivists or formalists, neither fully concerned with simply inducing emotion or making a "perfect" piece of art, but using both to "say something", in the most abstract use of the word. A quote from Mahler would do nicely here:
> 
> "If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."
> 
> I hope this clears some things up; I'm not trying to say that Mozart's music is emotionless, but people can't seem to get the fact that there is a different way of expression than the overt way we've been spoiled with. I am saying the opposite, Mozart's music is so emotional to be extremely profound, nothing like the fluffy and superficial claims he gets. He is emotional to the point of sublimity, to encompass our time here on Earth. I feel that way for a lot of other composers, but Mozart is certainly one of them. He entered a period, like Beethoven and Mahler and Bach, where the composer was not concerned to express any single emotion. Bertrand Russell, in one of his letters when writing the Principia, wrote that he wanted to create something that was neither good nor bad but simply said something, like the sea. He also called the Principa an artwork. I think he was getting at the same thing.


Thanks for your lucid comments. I didn't ever suggest that Mozart was 'emotional' in the Romantic sense, simply that the emotion was his own: not 'representational'. People become bogged down in semantics when these things are discussed.

As to writing music instead of speaking words: Mozart did an awful lot of both, and wrote a heck of a lot ABOUT his own music and its milieu. Thank goodness for that!! We don't have the scores alone as documentary evidence of his ideas.

I'm glad you enjoy the Clarinet Concerto and that you think it's sensitive to the human condition. That's how I feel about Strauss' "Four Last Songs". But I wouldn't say they contain all of life. Strauss himself wouldn't have agreed with that. I don't know any piece of music that does. And if we were to say that, whose 'life' would it be? Not mine; yours perhaps. But I certainly get the idea behind what you're saying. It's great that music moves us so much like this!!

Unfortunately, for me, the Clarinet Concerto is played so often (especially in films) that it's become a kind of cliche. I enjoyed it decades ago but these days I hear more in Vaughan-Williams "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis", thinking this is one of the most sublime masterpieces in the history of music.


----------



## Cheyenne

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Unfortunately, for me, the Clarinet Concerto is played so often (especially in films) that it's become a kind of cliche.


I hear that complaint often, but I have that feeling with few works, and even then it's wholly possible to dismiss it temporarily to regain appreciation for the piece. His clarinet quintet has at least not suffered the same fate, which, incidentally, is what SottoVoce seemed to be talking about, not the concerto


----------



## Guest

Cheyenne said:


> I hear that complaint often, but I have that feeling with few works, and even then it's wholly possible to dismiss it temporarily to regain appreciation for the piece. His clarinet quintet has at least not suffered the same fate, which, incidentally, is what SottoVoce seemed to be talking about, not the concerto


Yes, the Quintet. Sorry about the typo! I think both are done to death.

I guess my answer would be, 'well, there's an awful lot of other music out there if one is exhausted by cliche'.

(Same with Beethoven's "Archduke", Symphony No. 5; Schubert's execrable "Trout Quintet" etc. etc. etc.)


----------



## KenOC

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> ... Schubert's execrable "Trout Quintet" etc. etc. etc.


And here I thought I was the only one!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> And here I thought I was the only one!


It's just awful, isn't it? Repetitious and twee. There are just so many wonderful chamber music alternatives out there, not to mention the baroque trio sonata.


----------



## huh

As someone who just got into classical music, I too find Mozart's piano concertos charming, perfectly controlled with notes calculated almost mathmatically that a full appreciation is rather an acquired taste for many people like me. The oxymoron is Mozart is both easy and not so easy to like. Unlike any other composers, I believe, Mozart is otherworldly, simplely not one of us.


----------



## Taggart

Coming in a bit late. I think one of the nice things about Mozart is that he transcends cultures e.g.






It's much the same as Bach with Jacques Loussier or even Steeleye Span ("Bach goes to Limerick")


----------



## Guest

I assume nothing. And I try to not convince anybody that my musical tastes are the way to go. I thoroughly believe in the economic rules of supply and demand - the less demand there is for something, the cheaper it will be. So if less people want to buy Mozart, then maybe my cost will go down.

Not everybody wants to live in the Bahamas. I have visited there - too touristy. For hermits, Antarctica might be the ideal location. Nobody but penguins to pester you.


----------



## millionrainbows

DrMike said:


> I assume nothing. And I try to not convince anybody that my musical tastes are the way to go. I thoroughly believe in the economic rules of supply and demand - the less demand there is for something, the cheaper it will be. So if less people want to buy Mozart, then maybe my cost will go down.
> 
> Not everybody wants to live in the Bahamas. I have visited there - too touristy. For hermits, Antarctica might be the ideal location. Nobody but penguins to pester you.


Uhh...ok..


----------



## IBMchicago

I think some people feel a little let down by Mozart's music. A child prodigy who is documented as performing super-human music skills, be it keyboard tricks, variations on a theme, or instantaneous composition - and then goes on to defy all odds and become not only a successful adult (most child prodigies are known to peak early and not live up to expected potential in adulthood) but, one of the most beloved adult creative geniuses in history. I think naysayers were expecting an innovator, not a perfector...in our democratic society we are taught to value innovation and new ideas.

That being said, Mozart is my absolute favorite (along with Bach and Schubert) and I appreciate his music for what it means to me -- something quite perfect and ethereal, and yet so relatable...a great commentary on day-to-day human existence.


----------



## Ramako

I have become hugely enamoured of the "Haydn" quartets recently (as in the one written by Mozart). I have been listening to them and they can grab my attention like few other pieces, and include some of the most remarkable passages I've ever heard. Haydn himself once said of his sadly deceased friend, that he would have been famous as a great composer even if he had only written the Requiem and the string quartets.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

You mean Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, well I don't like his name for a start, sounds like a cross between a flower and a wolf joined to a Monk!

Plus he was Austrian........... and just too damn popular, hearing his music" Laudate Dominum", played on a Banjo didn't help matters much either.


----------



## millionrainbows

The *Robert Casadesus* box of Mozart piano concertos on _Sony Masters Series_ is a must-have. The recording and mastering are top-notch, and Casadesus plays with a balance and restraint rarely achieved by most other over-Romanticized pianists.


----------



## Guest

Eddie, are you kidding? Are you merely looking for a salve after yesterday's political shenanigans in Australia??? (My son is working at the heart of all this in parliament house).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Am I ever not Kidding ! but don't like Mozart thou, they rate right alongside Aussie politicians in the popularity stakes.

In Canberra, I feel sorry for him.......... the compromise capital, only built because Melbourne and Sydney don't get along, as a halfway deal!


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Am I ever not Kidding ! but don't like Mozart thou, they rate right alongside Aussie politicians in the popularity stakes.
> 
> In Canberra, I feel sorry for him.......... the compromise capital, only built because Melbourne and Sydney don't get along, as a halfway deal!


I was fielding sms from family all day yesterday re Gillard ("Shrillard" we call her) and company. He loves his work as a political media adviser - never a dull moment, trips overseas and speech-writing - one of which was delivered by a pollie in London 4 weeks ago! He used to be a journo until he 'crossed to the other side'!!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I see, so he is now on the dark side- "Shrillard" that is very good, very apt. You know she is of Welsh background and very good at leeks too. 
She has just survived a challenge from Darth Rudd, yesterday and better watch out for Dad & Dave goes to town and Abbott and Costello in the up coming federal election here!


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I see, so he is now on the dark side- "Shrillard" that is very good, very apt. You know she is of Welsh background and very good at leeks too.
> She has just survived a challenge from Darth Rudd, yesterday and better watch out for Dad & Dave goes to town and Abbott and Costello in the up coming federal election here!


Darth Rudd is a classical Narcissistic Personality. Did you see the leaked tape of him trying to speak Mandarin? He was engaged in a rage-fuelled rant - this is what "Narcs" do. (The only person 'on to him' was David Marr from Fairfax Media.) We are all better off without him and, for now, we must be 'content' with Shrillard and her few vowels, "*I*k-nowledge", "*I*m-ployers and Im-ployees", "*I*m-powerment". Well, you get the idea. Oh, and "ka-mmunidies" (any relation to "Eumenides", I wonder?). :lol:

Mozart, Mozart, Mozart. We shouldn't have changed the subject if favour of a far less auspicious one!!.


----------



## Amateur

Apart from Glenn Gould, who dislikes Mozart? 
It took a while for the Romantics to appreciate his depth, and some people still think works like the D minor piano concerto K. 466 are better than others because they foreshadow Beethoven, but I think most everybody's gotten past that now.


----------



## Guest

Amateur said:


> Apart from Glenn Gould, who dislikes Mozart?
> It took a while for the Romantics to appreciate his depth, and some people still think works like the D minor piano concerto K. 466 are better than others because they foreshadow Beethoven, but I think most everybody's gotten past that now.


I guess everybody dislikes somebody - there's no golden rule which says everyone must like a particular composer. I was a huge fan of Mozart until I was about 40 then he slipped to the back of the queue once I had studied music at university and found a veritable smorgasbord one would never hope to fully digest in a lifetime. But I do have particular pieces by Mozart which I enjoy, like the final symphonies, the Gran Partita, 3 piano concertos, 3 operas, half a dozen piano sonatas and a piano trio or two. Having been to Mass every Sunday at Augustinerkirche in Vienna all through 2011, I was privileged to hear all the major masses from Haydn, Schubert, Mozart each Sunday with full symphony orchestra and choir. I became bored with Mozart's masses after that experience, I'll be honest. Haydn's were quite enjoyable, but Schubert's Deutsch Mass was very interesting!! I was thinking "The Catholics have three composers but the Protestants only needed one (Bach)"!!!

But I listen less and less to Mozart these days, preferring more "gravitas" and "granite" in my music much of the time - that and poetry!! I'm expressing this awkwardly; there is a combination of ingredients which I 'need' these days which I don't find so much in Mozart - or not as much as I once used to, shall we say. But he's definitely still on my list!!

Then there's over-hearing a particular composer: I hasten to add I can never become too familiar with either Bach or Beethoven. Even Brahms has to be heard with less regularity than before!!


----------



## Amateur

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I guess everybody dislikes somebody - there's no golden rule which says everyone must like a particular composer. I was a huge fan of Mozart until I was about 40 then he slipped to the back of the queue once I had studied music at university and found a veritable smorgasbord one would never hope to fully digest in a lifetime. But I do have particular pieces by Mozart which I enjoy, like the final symphonies, the Gran Partita, 3 piano concertos, 3 operas, half a dozen piano sonatas and a piano trio or two. Having been to Mass every Sunday at Augustinerkirche in Vienna all through 2011, I was privileged to hear all the major masses from Haydn, Schubert, Mozart each Sunday with full symphony orchestra and choir. I became bored with Mozart's masses after that experience, I'll be honest. Haydn's were quite enjoyable, but Schubert's Deutsch Mass was very interesting!! I was thinking "The Catholics have three composers but the Protestants only needed one (Bach)"!!!
> 
> But I listen less and less to Mozart these days, preferring more "gravitas" and "granite" in my music much of the time - that and poetry!! I'm expressing this awkwardly; there is a combination of ingredients which I 'need' these days which I don't find so much in Mozart - or not as much as I once used to, shall we say. But he's definitely still on my list!!
> 
> Then there's over-hearing a particular composer: I hasten to add I can never become too familiar with either Bach or Beethoven. Even Brahms has to be heard with less regularity than before!!


Suppose Klemperer can give you a granitic Mozart. That's everybody's favorite adjective for Klemp. But I find plenty of gravitas even in an early masterpiece like the K271 piano concerto. (What a second movement!)


----------



## Guest

Amateur said:


> Suppose Klemperer can give you a granitic Mozart. That's everybody's favorite adjective for Klemp. But I find plenty of gravitas even in an early masterpiece like the K271 piano concerto. (What a second movement!)


Agree about K271!!! It's my favourite, alongside the D Minor No. 20 Concerto. Sublimity par excellence.

I did say 'gravitas'-plus, and I expressed myself inadequately. I think you know what I mean by 'granitic' - its a knotty, hard, complex and deeply introspective quality - in some ways impenetrable. (Ligeti's Piano Etudes have this quality. Also his Hungarian Rock Chaconne!!)

Often words are not enough to discuss our responses to music, I find. And I thank God for that every single day.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Darth Rudd is a classical Narcissistic Personality. Did you see the leaked tape of him trying to speak Mandarin? He was engaged in a rage-fuelled rant - this is what "Narcs" do. (The only person 'on to him' was David Marr from Fairfax Media.) We are all better off without him and, for now, we must be 'content' with Shrillard and her few vowels, "*I*k-nowledge", "*I*m-ployers and Im-ployees", "*I*m-powerment". Well, you get the idea. Oh, and "ka-mmunidies" (any relation to "Eumenides", I wonder?). :lol:
> 
> Mozart, Mozart, Mozart. We shouldn't have changed the subject if favour of a far less auspicious one!!.


Yes, the Narc is dead but the red witch wont be far behind but then we will be left with Abbott and Costello and I'll have to listen to K271 to ease the pain and numb my brain.

Notice lol, how I tried to bring back on topic......... Subtle I'm not.

Ps I liked the "less auspicious" bit


----------



## PetrB

Some people only like gravy with thickeners, i.e. fat / corn starch / flour added _to a perfectly good clear Jus...._

Mozart is musical 'Jus.' without thickeners added.

Some people just love fat... What else is there to say?


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Some people just love fat... What else is there to say?


And that's why we have Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, all those other "er" guys... :devil:


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Some people only like gravy with thickeners, i.e. fat / corn starch / flour added _to a perfectly good clear Jus...._
> 
> Mozart is musical 'Jus.' without thickeners added.
> 
> Some people just love fat... What else is there to say?


Gorgeous metaphor, PetrB!! (Here I am again, aye!) I love fat AND Jus.....mains then dessert. What more is there to say?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> And that's why we have Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, all those other "er" guys... :devil:


I just don't see anybody getting Arterioscerlosis from any of these, er, "guys". High five Anton; love the Motets but those symphonies give me cholesterol problems. In fact, those slow-moving, gigantic symphonies take ages to 'digest' and can actually be bad for the heart and brain in other, less discernible, ways!!!!!!:lol:


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Yes, the Narc is dead but the red witch wont be far behind but then we will be left with Abbott and Costello and I'll have to listen to K271 to ease the pain and numb my brain.
> 
> Notice lol, how I tried to bring back on topic......... Subtle I'm not.
> 
> Ps I liked the "less auspicious" bit


Think I'll hire, on14 September (*Clean-up Australia Da*y), that classic movie from Video Ezy, "The Wake of the Red Witch". Should be very satisfying. Come to our place for the after-party!!


----------



## PetrB

SottoVoce said:


> The only person who I have respected and who have had qualms with Mozart's music is Glenn Gould. And I don't think it'd be far to say that Glenn is something like the Leo Tolstoy of music... in the most endearing sense of the label. It's needed for every artform to stop a deep hero worship.
> 
> But most of the time when I hear people criticize Mozart just because his music doesn't fit their certain view of what music is bent on doing, I usually conclude that they know nothing about music. I think a real maturing factor in appreciating art in general is appreciating the importance of form, not form in itself, but the form that carries out the sublimity of the artwork. Something subtle and doesn't make quite a fuss. Bertrand Russell used to always say, although this is in philosophy, that it is much easier to sound profound than clear; I think it fits equally well for music. Not only does Mozart have form, but Mozart has just as much propensity to the sublime as any of the most expressive of the Late Romantics; not just simple sublimity either, Mozart was considered one of the most learned composers of his time, and his work is rife with very complex counterpoint, but of a different kind than the rigor of Bach or the angularity of Beethoven. It astounds me on how someone could listen to the Clarinet Quintet or some of those great slow movements of the Piano Concertos and not feel the transcendental quality of his music.
> 
> And I'm not the only one defending this old fortress. Listen to Arnie make my point much better than I ever could've done:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I have learned this directly from Mozart... and I am proud of it." Makes you realize how much of that talk of the modernists trying to break away from the Western tradition is such hogwash.


It has come very clear in retrospect that Schoenberg was a late romantic, and steeped in classical aesthetic -- ergo, an actual 'conservative,' along with Berg.

Then there was Webern, with triple doctorates or such in music, a stunning 'classical' formalist who really, really, knew his stuff. They were all Austrian, and certainly did not throw out the previous generations of great composers, or what was learned from them, with the bathwater


----------



## PetrB

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Gorgeous metaphor, PetrB!! (Here I am again, aye!) I love fat AND Jus.....mains then dessert. What more is there to say?


Well then, you're more 'polyamorous' in your musical tastes than I.

No one has yet mentioned that in a trice, Wolferl could 'go anywhere,' make it sound reasonable, turn on a dime as it were, and all the while using only three notes to convince... a lean, clean killing machine, one would think even if not liked he would have to be extremely admired just for the extraordinary prowess


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Well then, you're more 'polyamorous' in your musical tastes than I.
> 
> No one has yet mentioned that in a trice, Wolferl could 'go anywhere,' make it sound reasonable, turn on a dime as it were, and all the while using only three notes to convince... a lean, clean killing machine, one would think even if not liked he would have to be extremely admired just for the extraordinary prowess


Again, you're right on the money. Nobody can doubt the genius and inventiveness - absolutely not. Turning on a dime - one can see that after even a cursory glance at the scores, particularly the piano sonatas. I used to love one in B Flat (cannot remember its Kochel number) and I would laugh (like a mad relation) at some of those harmonic shifts on pivot chords. THE most unexpected excursions to new keys. Even some WITHOUT pivots - just jumping right there (like the French New Wave of film-making and the 'jump cut'). I wanted to play it better so that I could convince others. Alas, my bog standard playing would clear rooms in an instant - not to mention a discussion on the finer points of harmony and enharmonics!!

I remember the film "Dead Poet's Society" and Keating telling the boys "women swoon" when you talk poetry to them. Not so musical analysis, alas!! (And it would be the wrong gender doing the 'swooning' for me anyway!).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Think I'll hire, on14 September (*Clean-up Australia Da*y), that classic movie from Video Ezy, "The Wake of the Red Witch". Should be very satisfying. Come to our place for the after-party!!


Thanks, will make every effort and thanks also (I think), for giving me new interest in *Clean-up Australia Day*, politicians be scared, be very scared lol. Not sure I can get this one back on topic. Maybe it could be called *Clean-up Mozart Day*. still working on why thou


----------



## Guest

Oh, young Eddie!! You are a man after my own heart - even though mine is old now!! Getting it back on track about Mozart? Well, we had a former prime minister, Paul Keating, who loved serious music from Mozart through to Mahler. Where is that kind of discerning politician these days? Apparently the 'hairdresser' in The Lodge brought the PM a little dog and it has a diamonte studded collar with "first dog" written on it. Don't make me say something more inappropriate, but also strangely APPROPRIATE!!


----------



## Couchie

He was a limp-wristed nillywilly. Wagner is classical music for men.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> He was a limp-wristed nillywilly. Wagner is classical music for men.


"Limp wristed" aye? If that's what it takes, BRING IT ON.

Wagner is classical music for men? Lets see: humorless, long-winded, pompous and preposterous with egos the size of all outdoors. Yep, that fits!:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Ha ha! "Music for _*real *_men!" Let's see...John Philip Sousa marches, "Victory At Sea"...John Wayne movie soundtracks, 1812 Overture with cannons blasting (whoops! that was Tchaikovsky)...How about music with real "hardware" in it, like nuts and bolts? Oops, that was John Cage...uhhh...Beethoven? No, that "brotherhood of Man" idea in the Ninth is suspect...what did he _mean_ by that?

New thread topic idea: *Was Mozart Gay?*


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Ha ha! "Music for _*real *_men!" Let's see...John Philip Sousa marches, "Victory At Sea"...John Wayne movie soundtracks, 1812 Overture with cannons blasting (whoops! that was Tchaikovsky)...How about music with real "hardware" in it, like nuts and bolts? Oops, that was John Cage...uhhh...Beethoven? No, that "brotherhood of Man" idea in the Ninth is suspect...what did he _mean_ by that?


...and Copland with his prancing Marlboro men...


----------



## millionrainbows

Copland was prophetic in that regard, considering Brokeback Mountain.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

millionrainbows said:


> Personally, he's one of my favorite composers. It seems that while most classical music fans like expressive and emotionally charged 'Dionysian' music, a lot of them do not like when composers exemplify the ordered 'Apollonian' side of things.
> 
> An an example of what I mean, Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' is an example of a piece that leans towards the expressive, Dionysian side.
> 
> Mozart (with Brahms) is representative of the 'order' side (though maybe 'order' isn't the best word)...and
> I like Stravinsky, but sometimes I find him to be too unconstrained and wild, evoking fear and terror.
> At other times I love that about him.
> 
> People don't give enough respect to the ordering, calming power of music. To me there is something sublime about the order and balance of Mozart's piano concertos.


His piano concertos were the most original pieces of music written on the planet at the time. Nothing else came close and it was a genre close to his heart. Both the piano concerto and the opera.

Mozart (and other core composers) are classical music gods. What is there not to get? Folks who bash Mozarts reveal more abut their listening deficit than anything else.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Ha ha! "Music for _*real *_men!" Let's see...John Philip Sousa marches, "Victory At Sea"...John Wayne movie soundtracks, 1812 Overture with cannons blasting (whoops! that was Tchaikovsky)...How about music with real "hardware" in it, like nuts and bolts? Oops, that was John Cage...uhhh...Beethoven? No, that "brotherhood of Man" idea in the Ninth is suspect...what did he _mean_ by that?
> 
> New thread topic idea: *Was Mozart Gay?*


Better idea: Was he gay and does it even matter?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Copland was prophetic in that regard, considering Brokeback Mountain.


Now that's one of my favourite films - of all time. I'm an Ang Lee fan. And Jake and Health (sob) were absolutely extraordinary in BM. Two beautiful, masculine portrayals of homosexuality. I loved it!! The film was actually quite 'musical' in its poetic visuals, theme and dialogue. Sorry, a bit of synesthesia there.

The 'macho' men were so revolting in it. The ugly, ugly face that is homophobia.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Diamond studded dog collar, maybe Mozart would have worn that - if he had been gay ! He might have even had a diamond dogs period..............

As to Paul Keating (couldn't resist), don't think gay is in his vocab, he infamously called the gay mayor of Sydney of being a sandal-wearer and 'muesli-chewer' and also said "Two poofs with moustaches and a spaniel do not make a family" ........... whatever all that means and even more Infamously had patted the Queen of the bum! and was called the "Lizard of Oz"(see pic below). Even beating Michelle Obama to the punch.....








He was a bit of a nut job really and possibly gay too ! and his Bio lists him as a Mahler fan!

At least I started off talking about Mozart this time............


----------



## Kieran

I'm at a loss as to what this thread is about now...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Kieran said:


> I'm at a loss as to what this thread is about now...


Doesn't really matter. All that matters is Mozart was one of the greatest.


----------



## millionrainbows

Kieran said:


> I'm at a loss as to what this thread is about now...


"Real men" are linear thinkers, and stay on-topic, unlike "poetic" thinkers who flit about wherever their fancy takes them."

Is that what you're saying? :lol:


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> "Real men" are linear thinkers, and stay on-topic, unlike "poetic" thinkers who flit about wherever their fancy takes them."
> 
> Is that what you're saying? :lol:


No, I just think the thread has been derailed into silliness, especially when it gets down to canteen level jokes about who's gay and so forth. If I was gay, I might find all this a little off-putting.

By the way, I know you were only responding to an absurd post before yours and I got that part.

And I like when threads are derailed, but the unMozartians ( © Me!  ) have been trying a bit too hard lately, and it's beginning to show...


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, it's irrelevant. I found out later that all my favorite artists are gay. That being said, do you think there is such a thing as a "gay sensibility?" At least, in comparison to a "hetero-male sensibility? That's really more what I mean, not matters of actual sex acts. :lol:


----------



## Kieran

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it's irrelevant. I found out later that all my favorite artists are gay. That being said, do you think there is such a thing as a "gay sensibility?" At least, in comparison to a "hetero-male sensibility? That's really more what I mean, not matters of actual sex acts. :lol:


Well, that's an interesting topic in itself. I mean, we also could ask if there's a feminine sensibility and a masculine one, and then wonder if a female who projects male traits in her art is a bit butch, and a chap who projects feminine qualities, etc.

A lot of my favourite artists are supposedly gay too, Michaelangelo being the top of the pile. But did being gay influence his art? How does this all work? It's a valid topic, if a tad Gordian to untangle.

But it isn't this topic, far as I can see. You replied with a nice absurdist touch to an absurd remark, and then the thread went off somewhere totally unexpected - as some of the best ones often do...


----------



## Minona

I think there are two reasons, both to do with over-confidence. 

Firstly, people think that because they can predict Mozart's music after becoming familiar with his style, that they are somehow 'over' him. It is well-recognised that Mozart makes us feel very confident. He, like Shakespeare, was a genius at getting into the heads of his audience, and leading them down the garden path 90-95% of the time. But it's that 5-10% that enlightens us. (This has parallels in African music, when people claim it is too repetitive: in fact revelatory rhythmic variations are dependant on that very repetition).

Secondly, people are over-confident about insights gained through hindsight. What Mozart did for the first time may seem obvious to us today, but it wasn't back then! We could also easily criticise old films because they seem naive in some ways now... but we have to take into account the time artworks are made and try to get into that mindset and appreciate it by putting some of the baggage outside perhaps...?


----------



## Guest

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Diamond studded dog collar, maybe Mozart would have worn that - if he had been gay ! He might have even had a diamond dogs period..............
> 
> As to Paul Keating (couldn't resist), don't think gay is in his vocab, he infamously called the gay mayor of Sydney of being a sandal-wearer and 'muesli-chewer' and also said "Two poofs with moustaches and a spaniel do not make a family" ........... whatever all that means and even more Infamously had patted the Queen of the bum! and was called the "Lizard of Oz"(see pic below). Even beating Michelle Obama to the punch.....
> View attachment 15307
> 
> 
> He was a bit of a nut job really and possibly gay too ! and his Bio lists him as a Mahler fan!
> 
> At least I started off talking about Mozart this time............


Politically incorrect comments about Keating's sexuality. I'm glad he is into "empire clocks and Mahler". He was also very funny and is missed!


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> I'm at a loss as to what this thread is about now...


Some side-tracking comments about Australia's political leaders, past and present. Sorry about that!! (If you knew them you'd get the jokes.)

The Gordian knot - untied!!


----------



## KenOC

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Some side-tracking comments about Australia's political leaders, past and present. Sorry about that!! (If you knew them you'd get the jokes.)


Given Australia's history, I hope your PMs stay out of the water.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Given Australia's history, I hope your PMs stay out of the water.


But seriously, we had a Prime Minister (Paul Keating) who was intensely interested in music from Mozart to Mahler and the public thought of him as effete, if not downright strange. He collects expensive antiques and loves architecture - and the man was largely self-educated, having left school at 14. Some of his sayings are legendary and hilarious and this isn't the place to really discuss these. Back to Mozart...


----------



## Kieran

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Some side-tracking comments about Australia's political leaders, past and present. Sorry about that!! (If you knew them you'd get the jokes.)
> 
> The Gordian knot - untied!!


Oh, are Australia's political leaders gay?

I don't mind people dragging a discussion away to inconsequential people like politicians, by the way. That part at least, I found easy to understand. 

Why do people dislike Mozart? It's how it is! The law of averages dictate that there must be some who just don't get it!


----------



## Ingélou

Minona said:


> Secondly, people are over-confident about insights gained through hindsight. What Mozart did for the first time may seem obvious to us today, but it wasn't back then! We could also easily criticise old films because they seem naive in some ways now... but we have to take into account the time artworks are made and try to get into that mindset and appreciate it by putting some of the baggage outside perhaps...?


You are so right, Minona. The same rule of thinking ourselves superior through benefit of hindsight applies to literature. Wordsworth was revolutionary in his time but because the Romantic view of landscape & the psyche is still hugely influential, his mystic feelings on the Cumbrian Fells are seen as banal. Mea culpa - I remember thinking 'so what' when my A-level teacher introduced his poetry to us, and got the same reaction when it was my turn to teach. By that time, I'd turned away from my undergraduate love, the lush Keats, & seen the point of the more reflective Wordsworth.

Do people who dislike Mozart really listen to him, or listen to him enough?


----------



## Kieran

Ingenue said:


> You are so right, Minona. The same rule of thinking ourselves superior through benefit of hindsight applies to literature. Wordsworth was revolutionary in his time but because the Romantic view of landscape & the psyche is still hugely influential, his mystic feelings on the Cumbrian Fells are seen as banal. Mea culpa - I remember thinking 'so what' when my A-level teacher introduced his poetry to us, and got the same reaction when it was my turn to teach. By that time, I'd turned away from my undergraduate love, the lush Keats, & seen the point of the more reflective Wordsworth.
> 
> Do people who dislike Mozart really listen to him, or listen to him enough?


There's a lot of truth in this. I don't discount the idea, by the way, that people wouldn't like him because he just isn't to their taste, or having sampled him, he doesn't give them what they want.

But you're spot on about the Romantic conception of the artist sweeping all before it, and only now are we restoring some balance and looking at pre-Romantics in the context of their own times and listening to them accordingly. In AL Bachman's Musical Companion (1934) which is a marvelous book to accompany me on listening to these works, one essay states that Plato was even described as being some sort of proto-Romantic. Personally, I think the Romantic concept of the artist is simplistic, and impossible to apply to all artists. It's become washed over by sentimentalists who still cling to the dreamy notion of the artist as being Other.

I don't mind this, by the way, though the orgy of Romantic excessiveness is anathema to me, but I think you hit the nail on the bonce when you wrote about Wordsworth...


----------



## Ingélou

I love 'nail on the bonce', though it does falter a degree from the Augustan style that clearly you & I both appreciate... 

(On second thoughts, though, even the Augustans had their downright side - like Pope's hugely enjoyable Lavatorial Contests in 'The Dunciad'!)


----------



## Guest

Ingenue said:


> I love 'nail on the bonce', though it does falter a degree from the Augustan style that clearly you & I both appreciate...
> 
> (On second thoughts, though, even the Augustans had their downright side - like Pope's hugely enjoyable Lavatorial Contests in 'The Dunciad'!)


That testament to Dullness is a pretty good poem. As is "Rape of the Lock" - 'what mightly contests rise from trivial things"!


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Mozart is hated by some for being overrated.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mozart is hated by some for being overrated.


you mean for being rated highly by others I think.

I find that odd - there are many composers I think are rated more highly than perhaps they ought to be - but I never hate. So what is it about Mozart that draws out this hatred?


----------



## Guest

I hate Wagner,I hate Mozart,I hate Schonberg,why always using such big words?
There is music wich I dislike but hate? Many pages are filled whith it and there is much ego involved in it.


----------



## Judith

I like Mozart, but Classic FM played him all day yesterday for the 225 years and it ended up getting a bit much!


----------



## hpowders

If you love classical music, you either like or love Mozart.

It would be highly unusual for one who professes to love classical music to dislike Mozart after extended listening.

Cage, Boulez or Webern, okay. Mozart, no.


----------



## Guest

I never listen to classical music on the radio,it is mostly an adagio here and a largo there,it is ment to relax and serieus music is more than that,more than hours of patchwork without beginning or end.
People say Bach is the greatest but there will never be a day filled with his cantatas.


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> I hate Wagner,I hate Mozart,I hate Schonberg,why always using such big words?
> There is music which I dislike but hate? Many pages are filled whit it and there is much ego involved in it.


Hear, hear, this is the post of the day!!


----------



## PlaySalieri

hpowders said:


> If you love classical music, you either like or love Mozart.
> 
> *It would be highly unusual for one who professes to love classical music to dislike Mozart after extended listening.*
> 
> Cage, Boulez or Webern, okay. Mozart, no.


Unusual yes - but there are examples. There was a young lady 6 months ago who came onto TC professing a hatred for K622 and anything else by Mozart as it is all so predictable and based on half a dozen motifs. Yes they do exist.


----------



## MarkW

It's the pink wig.


----------



## Genoveva

Judith said:


> I like Mozart, but Classic FM played him all day yesterday for the 225 years and it ended up getting a bit much!


Several years ago the BBC's Radio 3 had a whole week devoted entirely to Mozart, 24/7. They did the same for Schubert, Tchaikovsky and, I believe, Bach on other occasions (it may have been 10 days in some cases). I'm not sure but they may have done the same for Beethoven. I wasn't living in the UK at the time but I managed to "tune in" to some of the programmes from South Africa for the Mozart and Schubert events, both of which were great. I can't think of any other composers for whom this could be done, except possibly Handel and Brahms but it would be stretching it. What's needed is great variety and quantity, so that would let down most other big-name composers, e.g. Wagner, Mahler.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> If you love classical music, you either like or love Mozart.
> 
> It would be highly unusual for one who professes to love classical music to dislike Mozart after extended listening.


Do you mean classical music or Classical music? If one generally likes the music of ca. 1770-1820, it would be odd indeed to dislike Mozart. But it sounds like you mean classical more broadly, that is, Western art music in total. In that case why would it be strange to like, say, Stravinsky, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt, Prokofiev, and so on and not like music of the 18th century including Mozart? Wouldn't having a few people who don't like Mozart be just what one should expect given normal variation in taste?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> Several years ago the BBC's Radio 3 had a whole week devoted entirely to Mozart, 24/7. They did the same for Schubert, Tchaikovsky and, I believe, Bach on other occasions (it may have been 10 days in some cases). I'm not sure but they may have done the same for Beethoven. I wasn't living in the UK at the time but I managed to "tune in" to some of the programmes from South Africa for the Mozart and Schubert events, both of which were great. I can't think of any other composers for whom this could be done, except possibly Handel and Brahms but it would be stretching it. What's needed is great variety and quantity, *so that would let down most other big-name composers, e.g. Wagner, Mahler.*


Richard and J Strauss 2nd too.


----------



## pcnog11

I think the balance between the 2 sides are very important. You cannot just have one without the others. How a certain composer brings equilibrium of both sides in a piece is the true art of music. Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahmas all have their own equilibrium. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## hpowders

EdwardBast said:


> Do you mean classical music or Classical music? If one generally likes the music of ca. 1770-1820, it would be odd indeed to dislike Mozart. But it sounds like you mean classical more broadly, that is, Western art music in total. In that case why would it be strange to like, say, Stravinsky, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt, Prokofiev, and so on and not like music of the 18th century including Mozart? Wouldn't having a few people who don't like Mozart be just what one should expect given normal variation in taste?


Because Mozart is one of the top 3 or 4 composers of all time. When someone doesn't like Mozart who has given an honest effort at exposing himself to it, I question whether he likes classical music in general or is he simply trolling and attempting to provoke genuine classical music listeners into bad feelings.

Are you really attempting to equate the levels of genius of Stravinsky, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt and Prokofiev with Mozart's?


----------



## Becca

hpowders said:


> When someone doesn't like Mozart who has given an honest effort at exposing himself to it, I question whether he likes classical music in general.


Perhaps they are the same people who who are convinced that there is universally loved music after Brahms' 4th Symphony.


----------



## KenOC

I think people who dislike Mozart's music are mostly those who spend their lives trying to find evidence of alien autopsies.

Or maybe those deplorable Trump voters, well-known to the liberals here, who tend to say things like "Ma, I'm gonna go out and rassle with the pigs before dinner."


----------



## hpowders

Folks who post threads on TC like "I hate Mozart" are simply looking to provoke and are trolling.

It's like someone posting "I hate Donald Trump". Can't take them seriously, believe me.


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


> I think people who dislike Mozart's music are mostly those who spend their lives trying to find evidence of the alien autopsies.
> 
> Or maybe those deplorable Trump voters, well-known to the liberals here, who tend to say things like "Ma, I'm gonna go out and rassle with the pigs before dinner."


Spot on !..............................


----------



## DavidA

"If I were a dictator I should make it compulsory for every member of the population between the ages of four and eighty to listen to Mozart for at least a quarter of an hour daily for the coming five years." (Thomas Beecham)


----------



## DavidA

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mozart is hated by some for being overrated.


Mozart is hated by some for just being too good at everything he composed. I mean, such people shouldn't exist in the eyes of the mediocre.


----------



## Lenny

DavidA said:


> Mozart is hated by some for just being too good at everything he composed. I mean, such people shouldn't exist in the eyes of the mediocre.


I also think it has something to do with that - denial of prodigy or genius. I also sometimes do that, seriously doubt one man could achieve that sort of massive body of music in just two decades. But it's more of a positive side of denialism for me.

But also being fed up with hype and fame....

But no one can say Mozart is bad music or anything like that..


----------



## DavidA

Let's face it, anyone who writes a six part canon on the words "Leck mich im Arsch" deserves immortality! Was this the first rugby song? :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> Because Mozart is one of the top 3 or 4 composers of all time. When someone doesn't like Mozart who has given an honest effort at exposing himself to it, I question whether he likes classical music in general or is he simply trolling and attempting to provoke genuine classical music listeners into bad feelings.
> 
> Are you really attempting to equate the levels of genius of Stravinsky, Debussy, Wagner, Liszt and Prokofiev with Mozart's?


Some people find the whole notion of "top composers of all time" to be silly. And some people just don't like 18thc music. They might well think: "Who cares if someone is the greatest at composing in a style I find trivial or uninteresting?" And there are also trolls!

What about the context of that list of composers made you think I was "comparing levels of genius?" Comparing levels of genius is not an activity I find fruitful.


----------



## Ingélou

People have the right to dislike any composer, including Mozart. I have no idea why they would, but I imagine it would be because they don't like neat patterning or they find it hard to adjust to the ideas or fashions of the past, or they're not fond of piano music - something personal to them. 

It's no reflection on Mozart - there are people who don't like Shakespeare too, including intelligent people like Tolstoy or George Bernard Shaw. Myself, I love Doctor Johnson, but when I was at university, I didn't find many people who agreed with me - the 1970s zeitgeist was against it. 

For the record, I like Mozart.


----------



## quack

Ingélou said:


> It's no reflection on Mozart - there are people who don't like Shakespeare too, including intelligent people like Tolstoy or George Bernard Shaw.


With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespear when I measure my mind against his. The intensity of my impatience with him occasionally reaches such a pitch, that it would positively be a relief to me to dig him up and throw stones at him, knowing as I do how incapable he and his worshippers are of understanding any less obvious from of indignity. -- _Our Theatres in the Nineties II_

Shaw didn't hate Shakespeare. His typical arched remarks about despising someone more intelligent than him have been taken out of context. He critiqued Shakespeare's works furiously but still regarded him highly.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

DavidA said:


> Let's face it, anyone who writes a six part canon on the words "Leck mich im Arsch" deserves immortality! Was this the first rugby song? :lol:


Maybe some enterprising team could perform it in response to the All Black's haka, (complete with browneyes).

As for Mozart, I love his music, but every time hear about the "Mozart Effect" it makes me want to lose my lunch.


----------



## mmsbls

I'm not sure how many people dislike Mozart while liking other Classical era composers. I do know that TC members have said they do not enjoy the Classical era for a variety of reasons having to do with taste. If one doesn't enjoy the Classical era, it makes sense that one would not like Mozart as well.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure how many people dislike Mozart while liking other Classical era composers. I do know that TC members have said they do not enjoy the Classical era for a variety of reasons having to do with taste. If one doesn't enjoy the Classical era, it makes sense that one would not like Mozart as well.


At the risk of being jumped on by all the fans of J.C Bach, Stamitz, etc, I would venture to sat that Mozart, Haydn and early Beethoven _are_ the Classical era. There's never been another period in musical history when the gulf between its best composers and the rest has been so vast.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

It's probably the same people who don't like sex, sunshine, going on holidays or finding a twenty dollar bill in an old pair of pants.


----------



## KenOC

Retrograde Inversion said:


> At the risk of being jumped on by all the fans of J.C Bach, Stamitz, etc, I would venture to sat that Mozart, Haydn and early Beethoven _are_ the Classical era. There's never been another period in musical history when the gulf between its best composers and the rest has been so vast.


I'm tempted to agree with that. In the decade games on another forum, top-ten works were:

1760s, Haydn 9, JC Bach 1
1770s, Haydn 6, Mozart 4
1780s, Mozart 10
1790s, Haydn 6, Beethoven 2, Mozart 2
1800s, Beethoven 10

Half a century, 50 top works, and only one by other than these three composers!

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade


----------



## EdwardBast

Retrograde Inversion said:


> At the risk of being jumped on by all the fans of J.C Bach, Stamitz, etc, I would venture to sat that Mozart, Haydn and early Beethoven _are_ the Classical era. There's never been another period in musical history when the gulf between its best composers and the rest has been so vast.


I'm guessing you don't know the music of CPE Bach? Or WF, for that matter.











A symphony by WF Bach:


----------



## Casebearer

I finally found out why I don't like Mozart in general. I don't know if it's true and where I read it (probably on this forum, maybe in this thread) but Mozart seemed to have been at ease with his time, with society. He fitted in. Somehow I think that's what I'm missing in his music. As I said I don't know if it's true so don't hang me for it but it certainly feels true.


----------



## tdc

Retrograde Inversion said:


> At the risk of being jumped on by all the fans of J.C Bach, Stamitz, etc, I would venture to sat that Mozart, Haydn and early Beethoven _are_ the Classical era. There's never been another period in musical history when the gulf between its best composers and the rest has been so vast.


I agree those three composers are the most important of the era, but CPE Bach and Gluck were both very influential on Haydn and Mozart, so I think its safe to say they were also a big part of the Classical era.


----------



## tdc

Casebearer said:


> I finally found out why I don't like Mozart in general. I don't know if it's true and where I read it (probably on this forum, maybe in this thread) but Mozart seemed to have been at ease with his time, with society. He fitted in. Somehow I think that's what I'm missing in his music. As I said I don't know if it's true so don't hang me for it but it certainly feels true.


I don't think this is true. My impression of Mozart is he seemed to be kind of eccentric, from what I've read it seemed like he didn't really have much of a filter in his conversational skills so he would speak his mind and could be potentially offensive socially. Some people say he made enemies (and some even suggest he was poisoned), he died a poor man and it is unknown exactly where he was buried.

I'm not a Mozart scholar or anything but these aspects of his life to me are suggestive that he wasn't quite at perfect ease with his times.


----------



## Pugg

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's probably the same people who don't like sex, sunshine, going on holidays or finding a twenty dollar bill in an old pair of pants.


Post of this day!!!!


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> I don't think this is true. My impression of Mozart is he seemed to be kind of eccentric, from what I've read it seemed like *he didn't really have much of a filter in his conversational skills so he would speak his mind and could be potentially offensive socially*. Some people say he made enemies (and some even suggest he was poisoned), *he died a poor man and it is unknown exactly where he was buried.
> *
> I'm not a Mozart scholar or anything but these aspects of his life to me are suggestive that he wasn't quite at perfect ease with his times.


Don't believe what you see on the screen in Amadeus!


----------



## DavidA

Casebearer said:


> I finally found out why I don't like Mozart in general. I don't know if it's true and where I read it (probably on this forum, maybe in this thread) but Mozart seemed to have been at ease with his time, with society. He fitted in. Somehow I think that's what I'm missing in his music. As I said I don't know if it's true so don't hang me for it but it certainly feels true.


I hardly think Figaro, for example, was written by a man at ease with his society. After all, it was based on a banned play!


----------



## tdc

DavidA said:


> Don't believe what you see on the screen in Amadeus!


I have not seen that movie (at least not all of it), but no doubt I'm sure that movie has been the cause of some of what I've heard. Some of the points you bolded such as his financial state and the fact he was buried in a common grave (ie- not an aristocratic grave) I got from Wikipedia.


----------



## tdc

I thought a long time ago I read an interesting post here by (I think) KenOC, who said he read about how someone (Haydn?) was at a social gathering and Mozart was there, and the author made the remark that Mozart likely offended a bunch of the guests at this occasion with his behavior...am I remembering any of this right?


----------



## KenOC

tdc, not KenOC, doesn't ring a bell at all...


----------



## tdc

KenOC said:


> tdc, not KenOC, doesn't ring a bell at all...


Ok never mind. Maybe it was somebody just talking about that movie.


----------



## hpowders

I'm willing to bet that people who dislike Mozart are unhappy people who are never satisfied with anything, and never experience genuine pleasure in their lives.


----------



## Guest

I'm willing to bet that people who dislike Wagner are unhappy people who are never satisfied with anything, and never experience genuine pleasure in their lives.


----------



## Isiah Thanu

I don't listen to much "classical" music, and therefore not much Mozart. Sure, he was a genius and a wonderful musician, but as to listening to his music, I very rarely have sought out one of his compositions to listen to.What I have heard on the radio etc, is pleasant.
As it happens, I like sunshine, but it doesn't like me. I am happy, very happy: knowing what I like, too.
But I won't be buying any Haydn nor Mozart nor Bach CDs. However, I truly hope you enjoy yours immensely.
cheers.


----------



## DavidA

Traverso said:


> I'm willing to bet that people who dislike Wagner are unhappy people who are never satisfied with anything, and never experience genuine pleasure in their lives.


I can assure you that is not true of my wife! :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> People have the right to dislike any composer, including Mozart. I have no idea why they would, but I imagine it would be because they don't like neat patterning or they find it hard to adjust to the ideas or fashions of the past, or they're not fond of piano music - something personal to them.
> 
> It's no reflection on Mozart - there are people who don't like Shakespeare too, including intelligent people like Tolstoy or George Bernard Shaw. Myself, I love Doctor Johnson, but when I was at university, I didn't find many people who agreed with me - the 1970s zeitgeist was against it.
> 
> For the record, I like Mozart.


Under Donald Trump that right will be waived!!


----------



## Pugg

Isiah Thanu said:


> I don't listen to much "classical" music, and therefore not much Mozart. Sure, he was a genius and a wonderful musician, but as to listening to his music, I very rarely have sought out one of his compositions to listen to.What I have heard on the radio etc, is pleasant.
> As it happens, I like sunshine, but it doesn't like me. I am happy, very happy: knowing what I like, too.
> But I won't be buying any Haydn nor Mozart nor Bach CDs. However, I truly hope you enjoy yours immensely.
> cheers.


Each his or her own taste I say.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Isiah Thanu said:


> I don't listen to much "classical" music, and therefore not much Mozart. Sure, he was a genius and a wonderful musician, but as to listening to his music, I very rarely have sought out one of his compositions to listen to.*What I have heard on the radio etc, is pleasant.*
> As it happens, I like sunshine, but it doesn't like me. I am happy, very happy: knowing what I like, too.
> But I won't be buying any Haydn nor Mozart nor Bach CDs. However, I truly hope you enjoy yours immensely.
> cheers.


That is an excellent starting point for becoming a Mozart fanatic. Keep listening sir, the sunlight may yet find you.


----------

