# Mozart's Genius



## Avey

In honor of *W.A. Mozart's* birthday, a thread.

I have been listening to Mozart's music most of the day, with local and online radio celebrating his legacy and work. Something hit me on one of the broadcasts.

Routinely, the hosts would remark on the genius of a upcoming piece. Or, before a particular work, a conductor or renown scholar would share their thoughts on the music's _remarkable beauty_, and the genius in this melody, that structure, the whole process. Or, reading articles about him today -- or anytime, really -- the word genius and _prodigy_ and greatest and _eternal_ are common and anticipated.

These are not unfair labels (maybe subjective). *But why are these labels, specifically "genius," so readily applied to Mozart, specifically considering the depth of music created before and after him?* I am genuinely curious on how you all view the matter.

When it is Brahms' birthday, we play his music, but I would never hear "genius" applied to his craft. When Schubert is played, it may be "beautiful" or "charming," but I don't hear about a "genius" composer. When Monteverdi, Handel, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Ives, Shostakovich, Mahler, Bartok  almadeutscher or Boulez are played or written about in non-biographical fashion, the term "genius" is a rare phenomena.

Bach, maybe, is the only other composer that I see the label "genius" so readily applied to.

*So, why? Is it a fair label? Is it "fair," but could equally apply to any composer? Does it matter? Or, maybe you don't notice this standard characterization of Mozart?*


----------



## Avey

Not for particular discussion/reflection, but just to emphasize the point, e.g.:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/happ...genius-summed-up-the-universe-in-three-notes/

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3055976...day-heres-why-you-should-celebrate-his-genius

http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/mozart-the-greatest-composer-of-all


----------



## KenOC

Dunno about "genius", but I posted this a while ago elsewhere.

"Spending part of the day celebrating Mozart's birthday by listening to his chamber music. So far it's been the Piano Trio in G K.564, the Horn Quintet in E-flat K.407, and the Piano Quartet in E-flat K.493. Did this guy write nothing but masterpieces?"

Call him a genius, I won't complain.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Partly because of the stupid child prodigy thing.

Partly because, more than any comparably great composer, Mozart makes it sound easy.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Well I've made my views on the term "genius" known before but in Mozart's case the structural integrity of his music is near perfection until he hit the age of 17 or 18. After that it became perfect.

Here's something he wrote for him and his sister to play while touring Europe... And yes he was indeed a prodigy he was 8 when he wrote this...


----------



## Pugg

Harold in Columbia said:


> Partly because of the stupid child prodigy thing.
> 
> Partly because, more than any comparably great composer, Mozart makes it sound easy.


But then again it's not :tiphat:


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Well, exactly. It it were easy, then making it sound easy wouldn't be unusual.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mozart is a genius and one of the outstanding creative minds of mankind, in any endeavor. This is what makes Mozart's genious outstanding. Genius itself is already outstanding but Mozart is at the top of the top.


----------



## Nereffid

For fun, I Googled a few composers plus the word "genius" and got:

Mozart genius = 1,400,000 results
Beethoven genius = 904,000 results
Haydn genius = 400,000 results
Brahms genius = 406,000 results
Schubert genius = 417,000 results
Bach genius = 973,000 results

So yeah, "genius" does seem to be Mozart's thing.

Then again,

Kanye West genius = 2,760,000 results


----------



## ArtMusic

I like that. Mozart has become the "genius thing" and all the "Romantic" ideals of a young and poor composer when he died.


----------



## science

Most of us are just saying what we think we're supposed to say. But I have faith that at least some of us are the kind of people with expert knowledge about what Mozart did, and I'm willing to trust their evaluation.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Nereffid said:


> Then again,
> 
> Kanye West genius = 2,760,000 results


Well, he is one.


----------



## violadude

Nereffid said:


> Kanye West genius = 2,760,000 results









.......................


----------



## science

My AirB&B host and I were talking about Kanye West today because something about him came up on the news. Neither one of us can remember ever having heard a single note of his music. Can someone point me to what I ought to know? A few years ago one of my students was shocked to find out that I'd never heard any of Justin Bieber's music, and at her advice I listened to several seconds of "Baby" or "Baby Baby" or something like that. It was educational. Can anyone do me a similar service with Kanye West?


----------



## Mal

More Google results, searching (with quotes!) we get:

"Mozart was a genius" 14,900 results

"Beethoven was a genius" 10,200 results

"Bach was a genius" 8,790 results.

Unfortunately, I tried comparing my fellow countrymen:

"Elgar was a genius" 6 results

"Vaughan Williams was a genius" 4 results

No results found for "Bax was a genius"

There'll always be an England 

Then again:

"Shakespeare was a genius" 27,200 results 

P.S. Brahms, Schubert, and others, do fairly well in this test so I think the original thesis is wrong.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

The music Wolfgang wrote is enough testament to his legacy. I don't need to assign the word genius to absolutely love him. He is almost on par to good old Johann Sebastian at present.

Mozart has the stunning ability to create the most complicated music and make it sound utterly simple, as if nothing has happened.

Even my 4 year old has been amazed at times when listening to say his piano sonatas. 

When she innocently asks me to meet Mozart I explain to her that he lived a long time ago and is now dead. 

She looks at me bewildered as if asking: 'How can someone be omnipresent in our household, 'talk' to us with his unique musical language and not be alive?'

'Well, Mozart is indeed alive within his music and he will live with us as long as we keep listening.'

My little one still answers back: 'Oh papa, I miss him so much!'


----------



## Nereffid

science said:


> My AirB&B host and I were talking about Kanye West today because something about him came up on the news. Neither one of us can remember ever having heard a single note of his music. Can someone point me to what I ought to know? A few years ago one of my students was shocked to find out that I'd never heard any of Justin Bieber's music, and at her advice I listened to several seconds of "Baby" or "Baby Baby" or something like that. It was educational. Can anyone do me a similar service with Kanye West?


EDIT: Withdrawn. Dismal.


----------



## Fugue Meister

It's amazing to me how some perfectly decent threads get hijacked and descend into discussions about nonsensical things such as subhuman rappers (who may think they are genius but are most assuredly not) whom have no business being on said thread in the first place. 

And on Mozart's birthday thread... I'm sure he's spinning and knocking around other skeletal remains in that paupers grave of his.


----------



## Nereffid

Fugue Meister said:


> It's amazing to me how some perfectly decent threads get hijacked and descend into discussions about nonsensical things such as subhuman rappers (who may think they are genius but are most assuredly not) whom have no business being on said thread in the first place.
> 
> And on Mozart's birthday thread... I'm sure he's spinning and knocking around other skeletal remains in that paupers grave of his.


Apologies for the thread diversion, but... _subhuman_? Seriously?


----------



## Harold in Columbia

science said:


> Can anyone do me a similar service with Kanye West?


Here's one, fairly recent, that everybody seems to agree is pretty great:

(Not Safe For Work)


----------



## Avey

Aaaaaanyways....

The google searches are interesting, but as I mentioned before, that really was not my point.

I was more interested in what _you_ hear or read. Does anyone else notice how often the label gets thrown around with him?

I don't necessarily care about the label's use -- correct, appropriate, whatever -- but I am curious about _why him_, versus all those composers before or those after. Why is it every time I hear someone talk about Mozart, the comments are couched in terms of genius and this sort of eternal, untouchable art that is the work of God. I suppose it's that I don't hear or read discussions of other composers in that way, and this is what confuses me.

Again, I may be alone in this view. But I highly doubt it.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Well, some of us, including me, gave you answers, but evidently they didn't satisfy, so I don't know what else you want.


----------



## poconoron

Avey said:


> Why is it every time I hear someone talk about Mozart, the comments are couched in terms of genius and this sort of eternal, untouchable art that is the work of God. I suppose it's that I don't hear or read discussions of other composers in that way, and this is what confuses me.


My guess would be the following:

No other composer in the history of Western music put forth such an incredible body of musical works, _*by the age of 35*_, in which amazing masterpieces were produced in every genre, _*including opera.*_ Other major composers lived for the most part into their 60s, 70, and 80s. In fact, most composers created their greatest masterpieces at much more advanced ages than their 20s and 30s as Mozart did.

Also, name just one other composer who mastered opera _*as well as *_ every other genre. Answer -there are none. Handel comes the closest.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Nereffid said:


> EDIT: Withdrawn. Dismal.


Geeze, sorry! It's not like I said you _wrote_ it.


----------



## DavidA

Mozart was probably the most musically gifted person that has ever lived. His work rate and the quality of it inspires awe. Much of it is absolute perfection. He mastered just about every form of composition and turned out works of genius in each one. As a composer he is certainly one of the very greatest.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

poconoron said:


> Also, name just one other composer who mastered opera _*as well as *_ every other genre.


Debussy, Ravel, Schönberg, Stravinsky, Berg.


----------



## poconoron

Harold in Columbia said:


> Debussy, Schönberg, Stravinsky, Berg.


Debussy - no symphonies, concertos, operas ?

Schönberg - operas, concertos don't come close to Mozart's

Stravinsky - doesn't come close in operas, concertos, symphonies

Berg - symphonies, concertos ? 1 decent opera?


----------



## Mahlerian

poconoron said:


> Debussy - no symphonies, concertos, operas ?
> 
> Schönberg - operas, concertos don't come close to Mozart's
> 
> Stravinsky - doesn't come close in operas, concertos, symphonies
> 
> Berg - symphonies, concertos ? 1 decent opera?


Debussy - Pelleas et Mellisande, La mer is a symphony in all but name

Schoenberg - Erwartung, Moses und Aron, the Piano and Violin Concertos

Stravinsky - The Nightingale, The Rake's Progress, Violin Concerto in D, Concerto for Piano and Winds, Symphony of Psalms, Symphony in C

Berg - Violin Concerto, Three Orchestral Pieces (again, symphony in all but name), and 2 operatic masterpieces which are probably the best operas of the whole century...

And I'd like to note here that I consider Mozart one of my favorite composers, and I listen to his music probably more often than any of the above. I don't really mean to compare any of them to Mozart directly, and I don't believe that such different styles could be so easily compared. I simply see their achievements in their own ways as masterful in the genres they worked in.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I think a big reason is how effortlessly he composed his music. While Beethoven went through draft after draft while writing his works, Mozart had no trouble at all writing it down perfectly without any editing.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

poconoron said:


> symphonies, concertos


And here I thought you wanted some chamber music and solo instrument creds. If _that's_ all you care about, then we can add to the list Vivaldi, Handel, Berlioz, Chaikovsky, and Bartók.

And of course in my previous post I should have mentioned Beethoven.

And since Mahlerian didn't, I'll note that Debussy's rhapsody for clarinet and orchestra and sacred and profane dances for harp and strings are concertante works.


----------



## poconoron

Mahlerian said:


> And I'd like to note here that I consider Mozart one of my favorite composers, and I listen to his music probably more often than any of the above. I don't really mean to compare any of them to Mozart directly, and I don't believe that such different styles could be so easily compared. I simply see their achievements in their own ways as masterful in the genres they worked in.


I appreciate your forthrightness.:tiphat:


----------



## trazom

The comparison among genres is kind of misleading. If we're whittling it down to just generic names like "opera" and considering a composer of master of that genre by having one or two highly acclaimed and regularly performed works there, their success can only be compared in terms of number, which ignores other aspects of mastery like style. Mozart's achievement in composing 7 regularly performed operas is impressive to me not just because of the quality of the music but in the mastery of three very different styles: Opera seria, Italian comedy, and German singspiel.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Schubert doesnt get enough credit for being the genius he was. The only composer in my view who is the equal of Mozart in terms of his talent.


----------



## Muse Wanderer

Wolfgang had the remarkable ability of composing his works in his head and then transcribing them onto paper.

The overture to Don Giovanni was written few hours before its premiere according to eye witness sources. However it was written in his mind probably long before that. Before the premier to Don Giovanni apparently he was amused by the anxiety of those around him as the overture was not yet composed. The night before he started composing he had to sleep a few hours as he had too much to drink. His wife Costanza woke him up and kept him awake by telling him fairytales about Cinderella, Alladin and many more. He wrote it within a few hours and it was copied and given to the orchestra few minutes before the start of the opera.

Could it just be that this innate ability gave him the power to mould his compositions to 'perfection' during any time of day or night even in his sleep? 

Schubert also had a somewhat similar ability but in his case the music used to erupt out of him by inspiration and he needed to write it down as soon as possible.

Mozart might have had the ability to keep his inspiration and music controlled consciously and subconsciously within him. Once finished he would eventually write it down when he felt the time was right.

I can't imagine how many musical pieces may have died with him without being written down. Some pieces such as the Requiem may have consumed him at the end of his life as he worked at it within his mind. 

The works he left for us are so precious that it would be a disservice to him to compare him to others. Every brilliant composer had his gifts and Mozart used his talent to give us a treasure of astounding music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I think also Mozart's genius manifested itself earlier than other great composers - take the great aria Lungi Da Te from one of his earlier operas - composed at 14 - the complexity and maturity of this aria are way beyond his years, in fact way beyond what Gluck and Salieri were capable of at at their peak. There are more examples.
I dont think Beethoven's genius really manifested itself until the eroica - before that he composed a lot of music - very fine indeed - but lacking the inspiration of god - so to speak.


----------



## EdwardBast

poconoron said:


> Also, name just one other composer who mastered opera _*as well as *_ every other genre. Answer -there are none. Handel comes the closest.


I can name three without thinking about it: Haydn, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Tchaikvosky comes close, although he is weak in the solo sonata and string quartet. CPE Bach only missed opera because his employment history did not call for it. He did master the closely related cantata, however.

The emphasis on genius Mozart probably does have much to do with the prodigy thing, as several have suggested. There are plenty of good reasons why one might reasonably want to use the term for Mozart, and I would not dispute the attribution. But I suspect a lot of the hoo-hah is the product of people insecure in their own aesthetic judgment clutching at whatever intelligent sounding proclamations they can mimic without fear of contradiction.


----------



## EdwardBast

Muse Wanderer said:


> Wolfgang had the remarkable ability of composing his works in his head and then transcribing them onto paper.
> 
> Could it just be that this innate ability gave him the power to mould his compositions to 'perfection' during any time of day or night even in his sleep?
> 
> Mozart might have had the ability to keep his inspiration and music controlled consciously and subconsciously within him. Once finished he would eventually write it down when he felt the time was right.





EarthBoundRules said:


> I think a big reason is how effortlessly he composed his music. While Beethoven went through draft after draft while writing his works, Mozart had no trouble at all writing it down perfectly without any editing.


I'm not sure about this, but isn't it known now that Mozart often sketched and reworked material extensively in composing his late works?


----------



## Mal

A genius is anyone with exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability. Any composer with a firm place in the canon is, by definition, a genius. I have heard people saying "Sibelius was a genius" or "Rachmaninov was a genius". That's what my internet search results showed - there are many people saying "X was a genius", where X is a canonical composer. Being a genius isn't *that* big of a thing - nothing compared with being called (say) the "greatest composer of all time", for which title Mozart is in the running with Beethoven and Bach (according to most critics...)


----------



## Strange Magic

It may be that being the first to be widely acclaimed a genius is enough to drain that word of its impact when used later to describe others who follow that first and spectacular example. Mozart combined extreme precocity in both composition and performance with a gift for endearing himself to others, a mastery of virtually all important musical genres of the time, and evidently the ability to compose extensively in his head and then commit it to paper while doing some mundane task. In addition to these gifts we may assume he had absolute pitch and a photographic memory. So once this exemplar of musical genius is very deservedly established, who can later come along to surpass or dethrone him? Saint-Saens and Mendelssohn are often referred to as geniuses; Rachmaninoff had both absolute pitch and a photographic memory. So in Mozart's case, I think he benefits both from a superabundance of evidence for genius and from the equal strength of being the first such genius so designated. A parallel would be Einstein--people will possibly still be calling some very bright person "an Einstein!" for centuries to come, and for the same reasons.


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> I can name three without thinking about it: Haydn, Prokofiev and Shostakovich.


Prokofiev - not a single opera in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list
Shostakovich - not a single opera in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list
Haydn - not a single opera in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list

Mozart -_ 6 operas_ in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list.


----------



## Kieran

I think with Mozart, so many stereotypes get lazily applied to him that it's not a bad idea now and then to challenge them.

He died broke, except he didn't.

He was an infant hooligan vulgar prodigy with a direct channel to the angels. Except, he wasn't.

His music is sweet and light and pleasant but lacks depth. Except this isn't true either.

The "genius" tag is an easy and safe one to give him, because if anybody was a genius, he self-evidently was one. As noted, he composed complex pieces with utter mastery in any form of classical music. I think only string quartets presented him with a little more difficulty but this might be based upon his dedication to Haydn of the six quartets he wrote for him: the fruits of long and laborious effort, or something like that. Many crossings-out in the manuscript. Hard work. But here's another myth of Mozart: that he wrote big long works in his head, flawless operas and symphonies, then basically became a copyist in writing them down.

Remember his reply in the movie Amadeus, when Schikanader asked him, "where's my opera?"

"In me noggin," replied the shifty proto-rock star.

But he worked hard at composition, was serious and erudite as an individual and gave all this work a lot of thought. He just happened to have a sublime gift of composing music with no seams between the themes. In any form of music at all. And at great speed. That is genius, but it's also deep knowledge of the craft and a result of excellent teaching from his father...


----------



## Harold in Columbia

stomanek said:


> I dont think Beethoven's genius really manifested itself until the eroica - before that he composed a lot of music - very fine indeed - but lacking the inspiration of god - so to speak.


I'd nominate the immediately preceding _Kreutzer_ sonata (with a very strong backbench including the _Pathétique_, _Moonlight_, and _Tempest_ sonatas, the third piano concerto, and the second symphony).


----------



## EdwardBast

poconoron said:


> Prokofiev - not a single opera in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list
> Shostakovich - not a single opera in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list
> Haydn - not a single opera in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list
> 
> Mozart -_ 6 operas_ in Talk Classical Top 65 operas list.


Favorites on TC is not the challenge you set. You said "mastered the genre." Are you disputing that Prokofiev's and Shostakovich's operas currently hold the stage at the world's foremost opera venues, in some cases nearly a century after they were composed? If not, then you are simply moving the bar and, arguably, moving it in a strange direction. It might be more graceful to just admit you were wrong.

Haydn is a special case, as he composed for small forces and intimate settings. He was, however, a thorough master of the genre of opera he composed.


----------



## DavidA

Kieran said:


> But he worked hard at composition, was serious and erudite as an individual and gave all this work a lot of thought. He just happened to have a sublime gift of composing music with no seams between the themes. In any form of music at all. And at great speed. That is genius, but it's also deep knowledge of the craft and a result of excellent teaching from his father...


He also had an unmatched genius for composing memorable tunes.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Harold in Columbia said:


> I'd nominate the immediately preceding _Kreutzer_ sonata (with a very strong backbench including the _Pathétique_, _Moonlight_, and _Tempest_ sonatas, the third piano concerto, and the second symphony).


Yes the kreutzer sonata is arguably the best vs ever composed.

How old was Beethoven when he composed those works you cite? He composed the kreutzer in 1803 - same year as eroica I think. anyway my point remains - Beethoven did not hit the sweet spot until he was well into his late 20s
pc 3 |I dont rank as a work of genius. certainly not the second sy either.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kieran said:


> I think with Mozart, so many stereotypes get lazily applied to him that it's not a bad idea now and then to challenge them.
> 
> He died broke, except he didn't.
> 
> He was an infant hooligan vulgar prodigy with a direct channel to the angels. Except, he wasn't.
> 
> His music is sweet and light and pleasant but lacks depth. Except this isn't true either.
> 
> The "genius" tag is an easy and safe one to give him, because if anybody was a genius, he self-evidently was one. As noted, he composed complex pieces with utter mastery in any form of classical music. I think only string quartets presented him with a little more difficulty but this might be based upon his dedication to Haydn of the six quartets he wrote for him: the fruits of long and laborious effort, or something like that. Many crossings-out in the manuscript. Hard work. But here's another myth of Mozart: that he wrote big long works in his head, flawless operas and symphonies, then basically became a copyist in writing them down.
> 
> Remember his reply in the movie Amadeus, when Schikanader asked him, "where's my opera?"
> 
> "In me noggin," replied the shifty proto-rock star.
> 
> But he worked hard at composition, was serious and erudite as an individual and gave all this work a lot of thought. He just happened to have a sublime gift of composing music with no seams between the themes. In any form of music at all. And at great speed. That is genius, but it's also deep knowledge of the craft and a result of excellent teaching from his father...


"in my noodle" I think he said


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> Favorites on TC is not the challenge you set. You said "mastered the genre." Are you disputing that Prokofiev's and Shostakovich's operas currently hold the stage at the world's foremost opera venues, in some cases nearly a century after they were composed? If not, then you are simply moving the bar and, arguably, moving it in a strange direction. It might be more graceful to just admit you were wrong.
> 
> Haydn is a special case, as he composed for small forces and intimate settings. He was, however, a thorough master of the genre of opera he composed.


I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

For me, _mastery_ has a much narrower definition than you evidently have. Mastery in opera is demonstrated by the likes of Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Bizet, Rossini , Puccini, Richard Strauss, and a couple of others - ALL who have a good number of operas generally acknowledged as being among the Top 10, Top 25 or Top 50 of all time. Your guys are not even close to that standard.

Are you also going to dispute: _No other composer in the history of Western music put forth such an incredible body of musical works, *by the age of 35*, in which amazing masterpieces were produced in every genre, including opera.
_


----------



## hpowders

OP: Listen to any aria or duet for the female voices from Figaro, Cosí fan tutte or Don Giovanni. THAT is extraordinary genius.

Nobody understood women better through music than WA Mozart.


----------



## EdwardBast

poconoron said:


> I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
> 
> For me, _mastery_ has a much narrower definition than you evidently have. Mastery in opera is demonstrated by the likes of Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Bizet, Rossini , Puccini, Richard Strauss, and a couple of others - ALL who have a good number of operas generally acknowledged as being among the Top 10, Top 25 or Top 50 of all time. Your guys are not even close to that standard.
> 
> Are you also going to dispute: _No other composer in the history of Western music put forth such an incredible body of musical works, *by the age of 35*, in which amazing masterpieces were produced in every genre, including opera.
> _


Yep, you moved the bar, and now it is apparently about quantity, which has nothing to do with a standard of quality. And, of course, all of the composers you list, except Mozart, were opera specialists who put the majority of their efforts in that one direction. And Mozart's masterpieces in the genre, while obviously towering achievements, are few in number. Sorry, but all three composers I listed meet the criterion you set before you presented this new and, shall we say, idiosyncratic?, definition of mastery.

I have as yet stated no opinion on Mozart's work. It is worth noting, however, that the standards for instrumental music in his era were quite different than in the 20thc. I think calling Mozart's best symphonies, quartets, and solo sonatas "amazing masterpieces" is a bit over the top. The best of them - a standard he reached a few times in each genre - were very fine work. Your description is, of course, appropriate for his best operas and piano concertos. But there is a reason why music occupied the lowest position in the pantheon of the arts in the Classical Era.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

EdwardBast said:


> And Mozart's masterpieces in the genre, while obviously towering achievements, are few in number.


5 unquestionable cases is a pretty big "few." I mean, Beethoven only has 6 unquestionable symphonies, and operas are longer.



EdwardBast said:


> I think calling Mozart's best symphonies, quartets, and solo sonatas "amazing masterpieces" is a bit over the top.


Yeah, well you're wrong. Like, flat Earther wrong.



EdwardBast said:


> But there is a reason why music occupied the lowest position in the pantheon of the arts in the Classical Era.


The Classical Era is when music finally got equal status in the pantheon (Haydn's achievement).


----------



## EdwardBast

Harold in Columbia said:


> 5 unquestionable cases is a pretty big "few." I mean, Beethoven only has 6 unquestionable symphonies, and operas are longer.


You are probably setting a lower standard than I am.



Harold in Columbia said:


> Yeah, well you're wrong. Like, flat Earther wrong.


No, I'm just someone who recognizes that good minuets and frothy rondo finales are rarely, if ever, worthy of being called amazing masterpieces.



Harold in Columbia said:


> The Classical Era is when music finally got equal status in the pantheon (Haydn's achievement).


So you have made a study of the history of musical aesthetics? I have. You are wrong. Right answer: Beethoven. The aesthetic theory under which it achieved high status?: Expressive aesthetics of the Romantic Era.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Yep, you moved the bar, and now it is apparently about quantity, which has nothing to do with a standard of quality. And, of course, all of the composers you list, except Mozart, were opera specialists who put the majority of their efforts in that one direction. And Mozart's masterpieces in the genre, while obviously towering achievements, are few in number. Sorry, but all three composers I listed meet the criterion you set before you presented this new and, shall we say, idiosyncratic?, definition of mastery.
> 
> I have as yet stated no opinion on Mozart's work. It is worth noting, however, that the standards for instrumental music in his era were quite different than in the 20thc. I think calling Mozart's best symphonies, quartets, and solo sonatas "amazing masterpieces" is a bit over the top. The best of them - a standard he reached a few times in each genre - were very fine work. Your description is, of course, appropriate for his best operas and piano concertos. But there is a reason why music occupied the lowest position in the pantheon of the arts in the Classical Era.


You are evidently no friend of Mozart's music.
He has 6 acknowledged great operas - that my friend - is quantity plus quality. Beethoven has 1 great opera.
The operas of Shostakovich, Prok, Deb etc etc - will fade from the repertoire - time will send them where they belong - obscurity. Opera companies do need them of course - as it gets a bit embarrassing that there are so few operas people really want to see. 
Yes Mozart's symphonies - the last great 3 plus the Prague - are the equal of any symphony composed.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

EdwardBast said:


> You are probably setting a lower standard than I am.


Well, I'm setting a higher standard than Prokofiev and Shostakovich.



EdwardBast said:


> So you have made a study of the history of musical aesthetics? No, you clearly haven't. I have.


There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who should be asking for their money back.


----------



## Blancrocher

EdwardBast said:


> But there is a reason why music occupied the lowest position in the pantheon of the arts in the Classical Era.


I'd be interested in your basis for this claim. I'd understand, though, if this is too much of a digression.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

stomanek said:


> The operas of Shostakovich, Prok, *Deb* etc etc - will fade from the repertoire - time will send them where they belong - obscurity.


Well now you're wronger than he is.


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> The operas of Shostakovich, Prok, Deb etc etc - will fade from the repertoire - time will send them where they belong - obscurity.


Wishful thinking?


----------



## ArtMusic

stomanek said:


> "in my noodle" I think he said


Yep, and it was the line in the movie Amadeus too.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I have as yet stated no opinion on Mozart's work. It is worth noting, however, that the standards for instrumental music in his era were quite different than in the 20thc. I think calling Mozart's best symphonies, quartets, and solo sonatas "amazing masterpieces" is a bit over the top. The best of them - a standard he reached a few times in each genre - were very fine work. Your description is, of course, appropriate for his best operas and piano concertos. But there is a reason why music occupied the lowest position in the pantheon of the arts in the Classical Era.


This expresses my view pretty well. Mozart did indeed compose a goodly number of extraordinary works. But I find myself picking and choosing, and often choosing among the individual movements of multi-movement works. Being flawlessly written is not exactly a definition of an "amazing masterpiece"; there's also that intangible element of "having something striking and profound to say," not to mention having a fresh, bold way of saying it. The latter two were simply not expected, or for the most part wanted, by Mozart's audiences, and even to the extent that he provided them (which he certainly did) he took criticism for doing so.

Just one example: my idea of listening to the "Prague" Symphony is to stop after the first movement, which is indeed an amazing masterpiece; I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the rest, but the other movements don't provide an essential experience after the magnificence and completeness of the first. It wasn't until his 40th in g-minor that Mozart came close - close - to the achievement that really belongs to Beethoven: that of composing an entire symphony in which the four movements constituted an entity larger than the sum of its parts, and which was an amazing masterpiece from first note to last.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Woodduck said:


> Being flawlessly written is not exactly a definition of an "amazing masterpiece"; there's also that intangible element of "having something striking and profound to say," not to mention having a fresh, bold way of saying it. The latter two were simply not expected, or for the most part wanted, by Mozart's audiences


Yes they were.

It's our expectations that are the story here. That is, we expect "Mozart's audience" not to have expected that. (Because we've decided that Mozart's audience was girly aristocrats, unlike us sturdy armchair sans culottes, and damn all the facts, we're sticking to that!)



Woodduck said:


> and even to the extent that he provided them (which he certainly did) he took criticism for doing so.


Actually he got praise exactly for providing that.

_"Mozart's... six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. *But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!*"_



Woodduck said:


> It wasn't until his 40th in g-minor that Mozart came close - close - to the achievement that really belongs to Beethoven: that of composing an entire symphony in which the four movements constituted an entity larger than the sum of its parts, and which was an amazing masterpiece from first note to last.


That was Haydn's achievement before it was Mozart's, whose achievement it was before it was Beethoven's. Also, the E-flat major symphony is better than the G minor.

-----

I wonder if it could be ascertained whether people whose favorite 20th century composers are middle-of-the-roaders like Prokofiev and Shostakovich also tend to inadequately appreciate Mozart.

Anecdotally, I seem to meet a lot of people like that.


----------



## EdwardBast

Harold in Columbia said:


> Well, I'm setting a higher standard than Prokofiev and Shostakovich.
> 
> There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who should be asking for their money back.


Insults are not a substitute for intellectual content.:tiphat:


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> This expresses my view pretty well. Mozart did indeed compose a goodly number of extraordinary works. But I find myself picking and choosing, and often choosing among the individual movements of multi-movement works. Being flawlessly written is not exactly a definition of an "amazing masterpiece"; there's also that intangible element of "having something striking and profound to say," not to mention having a fresh, bold way of saying it. The latter two were simply not expected, or for the most part wanted, by Mozart's audiences, and even to the extent that he provided them (which he certainly did) he took criticism for doing so.
> 
> Just one example: my idea of listening to the "Prague" Symphony is to stop after the first movement, which is indeed an amazing masterpiece; I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the rest, but the other movements don't provide an essential experience after the magnificence and completeness of the first. It wasn't until his 40th in g-minor that Mozart came close - close - to the achievement that really belongs to Beethoven: that of composing an entire symphony in which the four movements constituted an entity larger than the sum of its parts, and which was an amazing masterpiece from first note to last.


To a certain extent this brings us around full circle to what some posters had said above regarding Mozart's age when he died: how old was Beethoven when he composed these symphonies? Mozart was 32 when he finished his symphonic output. I think we can all agree that what he achieved there was fairly amazing. Had he lived longer, etc.

But here we stumble upon another facet of the Wolfie legend which bears examination, his age when he composed these great works. It's often said of him that he had "late works" and we hear of "early Mozart" but really, comparative to a lot of composers lives, his was cut short during what may have been still an early period. It would be unfair and ridiculous to speculate too wildly about what might have been, but given the context of his life, it's not unreasonable to say that the works he composed - so many of them, and so complex for their time, so dense and perfect - are works of genius.

Just a side note, but in a book I read somewhere, they used in Mozart's day say not that a person was a genius, but that they had genius. Genius was something that was intangible and not a possession or personality or character trait of the person...


----------



## violadude

stomanek said:


> You are evidently no friend of Mozart's music.
> He has 6 acknowledged great operas - that my friend - is quantity plus quality. Beethoven has 1 great opera.
> *The operas of Shostakovich, Prok, Deb etc etc - will fade from the repertoire - time will send them where they belong - obscurity. *Opera companies do need them of course - as it gets a bit embarrassing that there are so few operas people really want to see.
> Yes Mozart's symphonies - the last great 3 plus the Prague - are the equal of any symphony composed.









....................


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> I'd be interested in your basis for this claim. I'd understand, though, if this is too much of a digression.


Not at all too much of a digression: The philosophy of the arts in the mid to late 18th century was dominated by an imitative aesthetic theory: The arts were ranked in value according to the extent to which they were capable of imitating important aspects of human thought, form and experience. Sculpture, drama, and some kinds of figurative painting were highly valued because they could "imitate" human forms and actions in considerable detail. Decorative arts and music were valued less because they could not. The most common answer for what music accomplished under this theory was to imitate the inflections of human speech. Unsurprisingly, music usually lost in comparison to the other arts under this theory. For example, James Harris, in his mid-century essay, "A Discourse on Music, Painting, and Poetry," finds that "musical imitation is much inferior to that of painting" (according to Edward Lippman's summary.) it was also found wanting by comparison to poetry. In France in 1779, Boyé notes that musical enjoyment is "entirely … a pleasure of the senses and not of the intelligence," and later, "a concert is to the hearing what a banquet is to the sense of taste." If you ever wondered why Haydn for much of his life had to wear the same monkey-suit livery as his employer's cook, look no further! The imitative theory was incrementally challenged as a viable explanation of musical effects throughout the rest of the century. The gist of the theory's influence was that music was considered a low art because it was incapable of imitating essential aspects of human experience and thought. This low ranking did not turn around until expressive aesthetics came to dominate in the early nineteenth century.

Under expressive aesthetics, which began to supplant the imitative theory in the late 18thc, first in literature and poetry, and only later in music, the arts began to be valued according to how well they captured the internal life and soul states of their authors and subjects. Music very soon rose to the top of the pantheon, just above poetry, with the observation (claim, fancy?) that music provided direct access to this internal life and possessed a means of expressing it more direct than words. Beethoven both drove and rode this wave, and Mozart and Haydn were to some extent retrospectively elevated by it.

This is why I suggested to our new friend Harold that Beethoven, not Haydn, was the first to have a view from the top of the pantheon.

Sorry for the sketchiness of this little essay, but time is a constraint.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Basically all of the above is wrong. The Classical Era didn't even begin until about 1781 (the year in which Haydn published his scherzo string quartets, Op. 33) (maybe as early as 1777, if we follow Charles Rosen in identifying Mozart's _Jeunehomme_ concerto as the first Classical masterpiece), and of course critical theory always lags behind artistic innovations and their initial reception by practitioners and audiences.

Though the very existence of Harris' and Boyé's essays is evidence of the growing prestige of music even in the post-Baroque, pre-Classical period, which they were trying to invalidate in terms of in terms of the established theories of aesthetics.


----------



## EdwardBast

Harold in Columbia said:


> Basically all of the above is wrong. The Classical Era didn't even begin until about 1781 (the year in which Haydn published his scherzo string quartets, Op. 33) (maybe as early as 1777, if we follow Charles Rosen in identifying Mozart's _Jeunehomme_ concerto as the first Classical masterpiece), and of course critical theory always lags behind artistic innovations and their initial reception by practitioners and audiences.
> 
> Though the very existence of Harris' and Boyé's essays is evidence of the growing prestige of music even in the post-Baroque, pre-Classical period, which they were trying to invalidate in terms of in terms of the established theories of aesthetics.


Well, if all of it is wrong, then I am sure you can refute specific statements, right? And if I remember correctly, the initial reception of Haydn's music in the 1770s, by the only member of the audience whose opinion mattered - the man who put him in the monkey suit - was: Stop writing symphonies that disturb my digestion.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

(This is a continuation of my last post. A reply to EdwardBast's reply will follow shortly.)

The concept of a "pantheon" of music (more particularly, German music), with Haydn essentially at the top (sharing only with venerated ancestors), existed when Beethoven was still a young, minor composer. From 1799: http://kuscinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/composersun.jpg

Beethoven didn't elevate Haydn. On the contrary, the zenith of Haydn's prestige began when Beethoven was still a child, and the _nadir_ of Haydn's prestige was in the immediate aftermath of Beethoven.

(Schumann, 1841: "The program contained so much, that the evening may have exhausted some, and naturally: for Haydn's music has always been much played here, and one can no longer learn anything new from him; he is like a familiar family friend, who is always happily and respectfully greeted; however he no longer has deep interest for the present day." _"So Mannichfaltiges das Programm enthielt, so mag doch Manchen der Abend ermüdet haben, und natürlich: denn Haydn'sche Musik ist hier immer viel gespielt worden, und man kann nichts Neues mehr von ihm erfahren; er ist wie ein gewohnter Hausfreund, der immer gern und achtungsvoll empfangen wird; tieferes Interesse aber hat er für die Jetztzeit nicht mehr." _)


----------



## EdwardBast

Harold in Columbia said:


> (This is a continuation of my last post. A reply to EdwardBast's reply will follow shortly.)
> 
> The concept of a "pantheon" of music (more particularly, German music), with Haydn essentially at the top (sharing only with venerated ancestors), existed when Beethoven was still a young, minor composer. From 1799: http://kuscinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/composersun.jpg
> 
> Beethoven didn't elevate Haydn. On the contrary, the zenith of Haydn's prestige began when Beethoven was still a child, and the _nadir_ of Haydn's prestige was in the immediate aftermath of Beethoven
> 
> (Schumann, 1841: "As much as the program contained, so the evening may have exhausted some, and naturally: for Haydn's music has always been much played here, and one can no longer learn anything new from him; he is like a familiar family friend, who is always happily and respectfully greeted; however he no longer has deep interest for the present day." _"So Mannichfaltiges das Programm enthielt, so mag doch Manchen der Abend ermüdet haben, und natürlich: denn Haydn'sche Musik ist hier immer viel gespielt worden, und man kann nichts Neues mehr von ihm erfahren; er ist wie ein gewohnter Hausfreund, der immer gern und achtungsvoll empfangen wird; tieferes Interesse aber hat er für die Jetztzeit nicht mehr." _)


You have missed the topic of the discussion and of my posts, which was the prestige of music as an art form in absolute terms and with respect to the other arts. The fact that Haydn was on the top of the heap at the height of his fame has nothing to do with it. The issue was the heap in relation to other heaps, not who was standing on it. You are involved in your own private conversation here.


----------



## EdwardBast

I'm signing off for the evening Harold. When and if you figure out what the discussion is about, I might rejoin it tomorrow.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

EdwardBast said:


> You have missed the topic of the discussion and of my posts, which was the prestige of music as an art form in absolute terms and with respect to the other arts. The fact that Haydn was on the top of the heap at the height of his fame has nothing to do with it. The issue was the heap in relation to other heaps


Bluster all you want, you still obviously didn't know what Haydn's reputation was, before versus after Beethoven.

That aside: The fact that anybody cared who was at the top of the heap was a symptom of the new prestige of music in Haydn's time (largely thanks to Haydn's compositions) (though opera had already become important enough for non-specialists to seriously argue over in 1751, in the Querelle des Bouffons). For example, the image to which I linked was published in the context of a fight in the London press over Italian versus German music.

You're assuming that a form isn't prestigious until theorists say it is, which is, of course, exactly backwards.



EdwardBast said:


> And if I remember correctly, the initial reception of Haydn's music in the 1770s, by the only member of the audience whose opinion mattered - the man who put him in the monkey suit - was: Stop writing symphonies that disturb my digestion.


Haydn's initial reception:

----------

A visitor to Esterhaza (date unknown to me, quoted in Harold Schoenberg's _The Great Composers_):

_The delight for eyes and ears is indescribable. It comes first from the music, since the entire orchestra resounds as a complete entity: now the most moving tenderness, now the most vehement power penetrates the soul - because the great musician, Herr Haiden, who serves the Prince as Kapellmeister, is the director._

----------

London daily newspaper, 1791:

_The first concert under the auspices of Haydn was last night, and never, perhaps, was there a richer musical treat.

It is not wonderful that to souls capable of being touched by music, Haydn should be an object of homage, and even of idolatry; for like our own Shakespeare, he moves and governs the passions at his will.

His new Grand Overture _[meaning symphony, probably the _Oxford_] _was pronounced by every scientific ear to be a most wonderful composition; but the first movement in particular rises in grandeur of subject, in the rich variety of air and passion, beyond any even of his own productions...

We were happy to see the Concert so well attended the first Night; for we cannot express our very anxious hopes, that the first musical genius of the age may be induced, by our liberal welcome, to take up his residence in England._

----------

As for the "monkey suits" that we pampered modern Americans love to make fun of, like spoiled brats sniggering at their father's tie, the relevant fact is of course not what the conditions were when Haydn came in, but what they were when he was finished. Haydn became wealthy, by the receipts from performances of his works, starting with the symphonic concerts commissioned for London by Johann Peter Salomon.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> This expresses my view pretty well. Mozart did indeed compose a goodly number of extraordinary works. But I find myself picking and choosing, and often choosing among the individual movements of multi-movement works. Being flawlessly written is not exactly a definition of an "amazing masterpiece"; there's also that intangible element of "having something striking and profound to say," not to mention having a fresh, bold way of saying it. The latter two were simply not expected, or for the most part wanted, by Mozart's audiences, and even to the extent that he provided them (which he certainly did) he took criticism for doing so.
> 
> Just one example: my idea of listening to the "Prague" Symphony is to stop after the first movement, which is indeed an amazing masterpiece; I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the rest, but the other movements don't provide an essential experience after the magnificence and completeness of the first. It wasn't until his 40th in g-minor that Mozart came close - close - to the achievement that really belongs to Beethoven: that of composing an entire symphony in which the four movements constituted an entity larger than the sum of its parts, and which was an amazing masterpiece from first note to last.


You are very selective in making your main point - which is to establish that Mozart is not as great as the general and professional musical world thinks.
The prague is the point where Mozart started to approach his zenith as a symphonic composer - the first mvt does indeed exceed the other two by light years. But the last 3 symphonies are great down to the last movt, the last bar. Listen to some of the PCs - PC23 for example - 3 utterly superb mvts - the Haydn quartets - all sublime through and through - the clarinet concerto etc etc - I could go on. Yes there are works not of the first rank even when he was at his peak. But what does that matter if you find an occasional grey pearl in a chest of rubies. Did Beethoven not compose wellington's victory? and many more works that do not match the rank of the odd number symphonies. I dont think you know Mozart as well as you think you do.
You make the mistake of assuming that Mozart did compose profound music simply because of the nature of his audience - well sorry but you are wrong - and the great composers and conductors of history disagree with you.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Harold in Columbia said:


> Yes they were.
> 
> It's our expectations that are the story here. That is, we expect "Mozart's audience" not to have expected that. (Because we've decided that Mozart's audience was girly aristocrats, unlike us sturdy armchair sans culottes, and damn all the facts, we're sticking to that!)
> 
> Actually he got praise exactly for providing that.
> 
> _"Mozart's... six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. *But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!*"_
> 
> That was Haydn's achievement before it was Mozart's, whose achievement it was before it was Beethoven's. Also, the E-flat major symphony is better than the G minor.
> 
> -----
> 
> *I wonder if it could be ascertained whether people whose favorite 20th century composers are middle-of-the-roaders like Prokofiev and Shostakovich also tend to inadequately appreciate Mozart.
> *
> Anecdotally, I seem to meet a lot of people like that.


That does not seem to be necessary. I have met people who like that repertoire (Shosta etc) and do fully appreciate Mozart - but they tend to be top rank professional musicians and professors of conservatoires. No top level music professor would embarass himself with some of the silly anti-Mozart statements made by some on TC. He is - if anybody is - basically - untouchable.

That's why it is good to have music forums - so people can talk all the ignorant resentful B/S they want anonymously.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

stomanek said:


> No top level music professor would embarass himself with some of the silly anti-Mozart statements made by some on TC.


I've read silly anti-Mozart statements by top level music professors. He's very good at making people hate him.



stomanek said:


> That's why it is good to have music forums - so people can talk all the ignorant resentful B/S they want anonymously.


It works great until the day we realize that nobody is listening, except other people who post on music forums.


----------



## Skilmarilion

poconoron said:


> No other composer in the history of Western music put forth such an incredible body of musical works, _*by the age of 35*_, in which amazing masterpieces were produced in every genre, _*including opera.*_


What is this fixation with opera? It goes unmentioned that the first 15 operas or so that Mozart wrote are more or less ignored.

What is "mastery"? What is "every genre"? Wasn't there a composer, first name Franz, who died even younger than Mozart did, and wrote sublime works in forms including the symphony, lieder, piano sonata, string quartet (and other chamber), as well as sacred choral music.



> Also, name just one other composer who mastered opera _*as well as *_ every other genre. Answer -there are none. Handel comes the closest.


Depending on your definition of mastery ... Tchaikovsky comes to mind immediately. Other composers who wrote (or have written) substantial works in operatic form as well as many non-operatics forms: Stravinsky. Dvorak. Strauss. Berlioz. Prokofiev. Glass. Adams. Rautavaara.

And then there are composers who more or less had only one go at writing an opera, where that opera has become revered to some extent, and yet contributed substantially to other genres: Beethoven. Bartok. Ravel. Debussy. Ligeti. Mussorgsky. Berg (actually two, but still).

... I'd say this is an entirely different kind of achievement, yet at least equally worthy vs. composing many, many works within a form of which a handful are considered masterworks.

In any case, don't mistake me as being anti-Mozart, since I'm exactly the opposite. I think what is most remarkable about WAM will always be the piano concertos, for the symphonic nature of their conception, the intricacy of the writing (particularly for soloist) and the obvious expressive power that is found throughout many of them.

At some point it becomes a collection of maybe 10 or 12 or 14 or 16 (more or less consecutive) masterworks in a genre, where one work alone could have had us talking about Mozart as a master of the form, and which changed attitudes not only to this one genre but orchestral music as a whole, forever.

... is there anything quite like it? Maybe the Beethoven piano sonatas or Bach cantatas or Mahler symphonies. But maybe not.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> That does not seem to be necessary. I have met people who like that repertoire (Shosta etc) and do fully appreciate Mozart - but they tend to be top rank professional musicians and professors of conservatoires. No top level music professor would embarass himself with some of the silly anti-Mozart statements made by some on TC. He is - if anybody is - basically - untouchable.
> 
> That's why it is good to have music forums - so people can talk all the ignorant resentful B/S they want anonymously.


I'm just wondering who, if anyone, you think made anti-Mozart statements in this thread? A couple of posters said that he created amazing masterpieces in some genres and did very fine work in others. That was as negative as it got. Are you being serious? This is like people claiming that Christianity is under attack in the U.S.


----------



## EdwardBast

Skilmarilion said:


> What is this fixation with opera? It goes unmentioned that the first 15 operas or so that Mozart wrote are more or less ignored.
> 
> What is "mastery"? What is "every genre"? Wasn't there a composer, first name Franz, who died even younger than Mozart did, and wrote sublime works in forms including the symphony, lieder, piano sonata, string quartet (and other chamber), as well as sacred choral music.


I've been thinking about the issue of mastery as well. This little tiff began because, in response to the claim that Mozart was the only composer who ever mastered opera as well as all of the other genres, I pointed out that, by any reasonable standard, at least three other composers did. I was informed that I was wrong because mastering a genre meant having several works in the top 25 of all time(!) Given the self-evident absurdity of this criterion for mastery and its deviation from historical criteria for the standard, it is probably worth exploring what a more reasonable standard might be. In the area of symphonic composition, I take it to be self-evident, as would anyone who knew their work when they were active, that J.C. Bach, C.P.E Bach, Johann Stamitz, Mathias Mann, and Georg Christoph Wagenseil, among many others, all mastered the genre. In the late 18th century, it just wasn't all that difficult a task.

The current hoo-hah, however, is about opera. I would take it to be beyond dispute that Johann Adolf Hasse mastered the opera seria genre of his day (he died in 1783). He was, after all, probably the most renowned opera composer in Europe for a good part of his active career. He wrote some 70 operas and Metastasio favored him above all others who set his librettos. Under the criterion proposed above, however, one could not claim that he mastered operatic form because he doesn't have three on the TC top 25 list. I don't think I was wrong to challenge this point of view.

Now, the criteria for mastery in 20thc operatic form are bound to be more nebulous for the simple reason that there is no such thing. In this era, there are no standard templates for set pieces like arias and choruses or for the structuring of larger divisions like scenes. Undertaking an opera in that era became a considerably more ambitious task than it was in Mozart's day because there are no formal guidelines whatever to rely upon and one must invent the form from scratch each time out. Add to that, for the composers I proposed, the need to do justice in some sense to the work of major literary figures like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Gogol. Under these conditions, I think having a couple or a few operas holding the stage at the Met and the Kirov a half century after ones death is not an unreasonable criterion for mastery. After all, there is no form to master. Either one has the dramatic sense and chops to pull it off or one doesn't. Repeating the feat multiple times is more or less irrelevant because each time out one is doing something completely different in any case.

I fail to see how proposing that others mastered all of the forms and genres of their day in any way reflects badly on Mozart. You would think I burned the Bible or something.


----------



## EdwardBast

Harold in Columbia said:


> As for the "monkey suits" that we pampered modern Americans love to make fun of, like spoiled brats sniggering at their father's tie, the relevant fact is of course not what the conditions were when Haydn came in, but what they were when he was finished. Haydn became wealthy, by the receipts from performances of his works, starting with the symphonic concerts commissioned for London by Johann Peter Salomon.


All of what you say about Haydn and his success is true. It is well known. We all recognize it and applaud it. It also has nothing to do with the discussion above.

Re the quoted portion: The point was not to ridicule Haydn or his livery, but to point out and hold up to derision the fact that his employer, like many of his ilk, didn't recognize why a great artist like Haydn was, culturally speaking, more important in some sense than his cook.


----------



## isorhythm

Anyone who hasn't read _The Classical Style_ should do so.


----------



## poconoron

Skilmarilion said:


> What is this fixation with opera?


I detect a hint of denigration in your question. In a NY Times article were the following quotes from an article which I happen to agree with wholeheartedly.

_Opera is still the ultimate challenge and the ultimate achievement in a composer's life. It combines all the other arts; the composer is in control, which he is not when writing for dance or providing incidental music for the theater. In opera, all aspects of structure and timing are in his hands. And were else but in opera can two, three or more people express themselves at the same time - true counterpoint - and yet remain in harmony with one another?

Writing an opera provides challenges of many kinds - technical as well as human -- not encountered in strictly instrumental or nonoperatic vocal music, because in opera the visual is combined with the aural, the spatial with the temporal.

And musical theater is more evocative than music alone or theater alone. A story told in speech, movement and song is one of the oldest and most satisfying forms of entertainment. We should not have to live without it._

Composing, for example, a solo piano sonata vs. composing a full-scale opera is somewhat akin to mastering the game of checkers vs. mastering the game of chess. There are so many more "moving parts" involved in the process - but I'm stating the obvious here. Chopin once said: "_Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head."_

So I would be careful in denigrating Mozart's achievement in creating opera masterpieces, several of which are often mentioned as "the greatest of all-time".

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/29/a...mposer-s-ultimate-challenge.html?pagewanted=1


----------



## KenOC

Hmmm... This makes me nervous. I just Bing'ed "Beethoven moron" and got 88,600 results.


----------



## EdwardBast

poconoron said:


> Composing, for example, a solo piano sonata vs. composing a full-scale opera is somewhat akin to mastering the game of checkers vs. mastering the game of chess.


This is an incoherent comparison. Composing versus mastering? These are two incommensurate and very different things. If you want to make a coherent comparison, try: Mastering the skills required to write a good piano sonata versus mastering the skills required to write a good opera. The skills are very different, both are extremely complex, and I am not sure there is any meaningful basis for comparison. Obviously, and all things being equal, writing a long piece with lots of parts is more work than writing a short piece with one part. But this difference is more like playing a game of Monopoly versus playing a really, really, long game of Monopoly. And, of course, in writing an opera, one has words and plot as a scaffolding for ones musical thoughts. In writing a sonata, one has to create a purely musical structure that is meaningful and coherent on its own. Is one of these ways of composing more difficult than the other? Is one way of structuring music harder to master than the other? Who knows! Probably depends on the composer. It is possible that some composers would never be able to master the skills to write a good sonata, but yet find composing good operas relatively easy. And the converse is equally likely - that a composer could display an aptitude for writing great sonatas but never those required to write good operas. We both know that both kinds of composers exist. Things aren't as simplistic as you would like to make them.


----------



## Skilmarilion

poconoron said:


> ...
> 
> So I would be careful in denigrating Mozart's achievement in creating opera masterpieces, several of which are often mentioned as "the greatest of all-time".


Believe me, I'm not denigrating. I'm just not really convinced as to why opera is so important above other genres.

The article makes some points, fine. But it overlooks the fact that writing in other forms present completely different challenges. When you write a piano sonata, there is nowhere to hide. No libretto, no staging, no costumes, no gimmicks. There is the music, and the music alone. Two lines of music, nothing more. As a composer here, it is you and your language alone that is on show. That is an enormous challenge.

John Adams talked about something similar, saying that he has found writing string quartets quite difficult, feeling quite "exposed", compared to writing works for symphony orchestra, where on an off day when you don't have so many ideas at hand, you could perhaps get away with an exotic orchestral colour at a certain moment to "hide", so to speak.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Skilmarilion said:


> What is this fixation with opera? *It goes unmentioned that the first 15 operas or so that Mozart wrote are more or less ignored. *
> 
> What is "mastery"? What is "every genre"? Wasn't there a composer, first name Franz, who died even younger than Mozart did, and wrote sublime works in forms including the symphony, lieder, piano sonata, string quartet (and other chamber), as well as sacred choral music.
> 
> Depending on your definition of mastery ... Tchaikovsky comes to mind immediately. Other composers who wrote (or have written) substantial works in operatic form as well as many non-operatics forms: Stravinsky. Dvorak. Strauss. Berlioz. Prokofiev. Glass. Adams. Rautavaara.
> 
> And then there are composers who more or less had only one go at writing an opera, where that opera has become revered to some extent, and yet contributed substantially to other genres: Beethoven. Bartok. Ravel. Debussy. Ligeti. Mussorgsky. Berg (actually two, but still).
> 
> ... I'd say this is an entirely different kind of achievement, yet at least equally worthy vs. composing many, many works within a form of which a handful are considered masterworks.
> 
> In any case, don't mistake me as being anti-Mozart, since I'm exactly the opposite. I think what is most remarkable about WAM will always be the piano concertos, for the symphonic nature of their conception, the intricacy of the writing (particularly for soloist) and the obvious expressive power that is found throughout many of them.
> 
> At some point it becomes a collection of maybe 10 or 12 or 14 or 16 (more or less consecutive) masterworks in a genre, where one work alone could have had us talking about Mozart as a master of the form, and which changed attitudes not only to this one genre but orchestral music as a whole, forever.
> 
> ... is there anything quite like it? Maybe the Beethoven piano sonatas or Bach cantatas or Mahler symphonies. But maybe not.


Not so!
All recorded many times and frequently performed!


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I'm just wondering who, if anyone, you think made anti-Mozart statements in this thread? A couple of posters said that he created amazing masterpieces in some genres and did very fine work in others. That was as negative as it got. Are you being serious? This is like people claiming that Christianity is under attack in the U.S.


You or someone else implied that Mozart's achievements in opera are few - a statement that is demonstrably false. No opera composer contributed more to opera - not even Verdi. Only somebody anti-Mozart or utterly ignorant would say such nonsense.
There's also this idea that Mozart is famous on the back of a small number of famous pieces and all the rest is just pap - nonsense again. I can name you 100 pieces recognised as masterworks. and as many not far off.


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> No opera composer contributed more to opera - not even Verdi.


*cough* Wagner *cough*


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> Obviously, and all things being equal, writing a long piece with lots of parts is more work than writing a short piece with one part. But this difference is more like playing a game of Monopoly versus playing a really, really, long game of Monopoly.


That, my TC friend, is a ridiculous comparison. It is apparent that you don't agree with the following, already quoted:

*Opera is still the ultimate challenge and the ultimate achievement in a composer's life. It combines all the other arts; the composer is in control, which he is not when writing for dance or providing incidental music for the theater. In opera, all aspects of structure and timing are in his hands. And were else but in opera can two, three or more people express themselves at the same time - true counterpoint - and yet remain in harmony with one another?*
_*Writing an opera provides challenges of many kinds - technical as well as human -- not encountered in strictly instrumental or nonoperatic vocal music, because in opera the visual is combined with the aural, the spatial with the temporal.*_

In checkers, one is concerned with the movement of single pieces, all which have the same movement characteristic. In chess, one is concerned with rooks, pawns, bishops, knights, a queen and a king - all of which have very different movement characteristics.
But perhaps you don't understand how to play chess, so I'll give you a pass..............

What is so self-evident to virtually all musicians, composers, musicologists and the listening public apparently escapes you, so I shall allow the following quotes to carry the message:

*Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!
- (Rossini)
For I have always counted myself amongst the greatest admirers of Mozart and shall remain so until my last breath 
- (Beethoven)
Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.
- (Chopin)
What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.
- (Camille Saint-Saens)
The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. 
- (Richard Wagner)
In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.
- (Edward Grieg)
I never heard so much content in so short a period. 
- (Pinchas Zukerman)
Mozart touched no problem without solving it to perfection. 
- (Donald Tovey)
Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed. 
- (Albert Einstein)
It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)
In Mozart's music, all intensity are crystallized in the clearest, the most beautifully balanced and proportioned, and altogether flawless musical forms.
- (Phil Goulding)
The sonatas of Mozart are unique: too easy for children, too difficult for adults. Children are given Mozart to paly because of the quantity of notes; grown ups avoid him because of the quality of notes. 
- (Artur Schnabel)
Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles. 
- (George Snell)
Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
- (Saint Saens)
Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's-the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering--a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages. 
- (Leonard Bernstein)
Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?
- (Robert Schumann)
Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters.
- (Artur Schnabel)
Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
- (George Szell)
Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces. 
- (Georg Solti)
Mozart is the musical Christ.
- (Tchaikovsky)
A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.
- (Goethe)*


----------



## Harold in Columbia

EdwardBast said:


> You would think I burned the Bible or something.


Mozart is better than the Bible.



Chronochromie said:


> *cough* Wagner *cough*


Wagner did indeed contribute as much to opera as Verdi - but not as much as Mozart.


----------



## trazom

Skilmarilion said:


> The article makes some points, fine. But it overlooks the fact that writing in other forms present completely different challenges. When you write a piano sonata, there is nowhere to hide. No libretto, no staging, no costumes, no gimmicks. There is the music, and the music alone.


I'm not sure why these things have to be something the music is "hidden" behind. Many people might love an opera solely on the strength of the music and buy CDs of the opera to listen to the music on its own without any visual component, or even following the plot by reading the libretto. Not much chance of hiding the music behind gimmicks and distractions in those cases.


----------



## Chronochromie

Harold in Columbia said:


> Wagner did indeed contribute as much to opera as Verdi - but not as much as Mozart.


Your opinion, my opinion. :tiphat:


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Yeah, but mine's right.


----------



## PlaySalieri

trazom said:


> I'm not sure why these things have to be something the music is "hidden" behind. Many people might love an opera solely on the strength of the music and buy CDs of the opera to listen to the music on its own without any visual component, or even following the plot by reading the libretto. Not much chance of hiding the music behind gimmicks and distractions in those cases.


The music is still the essence of the opera - and no amount of fancy staging supreme singing etc can save a lame score. But a master score like cosi fan tutte can save modernistic crap staging


----------



## Chronochromie

Harold in Columbia said:


> Yeah, but mine's right.


Sure is.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> You or someone else implied that Mozart's achievements in opera are few - a statement that is demonstrably false. No opera composer contributed more to opera - not even Verdi. Only somebody anti-Mozart or utterly ignorant would say such nonsense.
> There's also this idea that Mozart is famous on the back of a small number of famous pieces and all the rest is just pap - nonsense again. I can name you 100 pieces recognised as masterworks. and as many not far off.


You couldn't make the minimal effort to quote or paraphrase me accurately?: "And Mozart's masterpieces in the genre, while obviously towering achievements, are few in number."


----------



## EdwardBast

Harold in Columbia said:


> Mozart is better than the Bible.


I knew we would eventually agree on something! Much better!


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Well, when you put it that way, I'm pretty sure you're just under-appreciating the Bible.


----------



## isorhythm

Mozart and the Bible are both pretty uneven.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> You couldn't make the minimal effort to quote or paraphrase me accurately?: "And Mozart's masterpieces in the genre, while obviously towering achievements, are few in number."


But anyway in the light of the facts - admit that your statement is mistaken. Mozart's operatic achievements are many in number, not few.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

isorhythm said:


> Mozart and the Bible are both pretty uneven.


Only if you bother with the weaker parts at all, and if you're not a minister or public radio programer (which come to think of it is sort of the same thing), why would you?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

isorhythm said:


> Mozart and the Bible are both pretty uneven.


And .... ? 

40 years ago, I read a review of a very famous C19th novel that said something along the lines that "this masterpiece is his greatest work yet has some of his greatest flaws". 
I didn't understand how a great masterpiece could be flawed ... but 40 years of avid reading (and listening to music and looking at art) have improved my knowledge and understanding, and it is clear that works of genius are seldom perfect - they are the results of *human* endeavour


----------



## Blancrocher

isorhythm said:


> Mozart and the Bible are both pretty uneven.


Only the Bible, however, is un-Eden.

For once, I think I may have won the worst-pun-of-the-day contest.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> But anyway in the light of the facts - admit that your statement is mistaken. Mozart's operatic achievements are many in number, not few.


You are still asking me to recant something I didn't write! Jeez man, accuracy is not that difficult.


----------



## Dim7

Blancrocher said:


> Only the Bible, however, is un-Eden.
> 
> For once, I think I may have won the worst-pun-of-the-day contest.


It would have been a passable pun if d and v had either the same place or manner of articulation. However they don't, so......


----------



## EdwardBast

Headphone Hermit said:


> And .... ?
> 
> 40 years ago, I read a review of a very famous C19th novel that said something along the lines that "this masterpiece is his greatest work yet has some of his greatest flaws".
> I didn't understand how a great masterpiece could be flawed ... but 40 years of avid reading (and listening to music and looking at art) have improved my knowledge and understanding, and it is clear that works of genius are seldom perfect - they are the results of *human* endeavour


I'm with you on that. I believe masterpieces can certainly be flawed. My favorites usually are. Conversely, flawless works can be mediocre. Or don't you buy that corollary?


----------



## DavidA

Harold in Columbia said:


> Mozart is better than the Bible.


Please spare these empty platitudes!


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> Mozart and the Bible are both pretty uneven.


I think this shows an ignorance of both.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

DavidA said:


> Please spare these silly platitudes!


It's neither silly nor a platitude and I won't spare it.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Headphone Hermit said:


> it is clear that works of genius are seldom perfect - they are the results of *human* endeavour


Only dolphins make perfect works.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

There is some serious idealisation of Mozart going on here, almost, one might say, as if there is a need to deify him and put him beyond any criticism. Perhaps there is some anxiety that the whole edifice may be punctured if doubt is allowed to intrude? There is not enough reflection or thought in this 'debate' for my taste, which implies the capacity for doubt and respect for diversity of opinion. There has been a lot of 'stating of positions'.

Once again, subjective taste and opinion, sincerely held, is in danger of being put forward as if it was unassailable and universally held fact and truth - which it evidently is not, the evidence being this thread.


----------



## trazom

isorhythm said:


> Mozart and the Bible are both pretty uneven.


Perhaps not during his Salzburg years, but I often see Mozart cited(including by none other than Brahms) as one of the most consistently excellent composers, at least when he started composing in Vienna.



EdwardBast said:


> No, I'm just someone who recognizes that good minuets and frothy rondo finales are rarely, if ever, worthy of being called amazing masterpieces.


I think there's a little more to them than that; but in any case, that still sounds delicious. I am now craving a frothy rondo. Do they serve those at Starbucks yet?


----------



## DavidA

What on earth is going on here? As just about every musician worthy of his salt exalts Mozart's comprehensive musical genius why are some people trying to run him down? I remember Bernstein talking about conducting his West Side Story and commenting, "The score's come up pretty fresh!" Then he added: "Not as fresh as Mozart, but who's in that league anyway!"


----------



## Headphone Hermit

EdwardBast said:


> I'm with you on that. I believe masterpieces can certainly be flawed. My favorites usually are. Conversely, *flawless works can be mediocre*. Or don't you buy that corollary?


mediocracy is, in itself, a flaw - ---- so, no - I don't buy your corollary :tiphat:


----------



## isorhythm

Headphone Hermit said:


> And .... ?
> 
> 40 years ago, I read a review of a very famous C19th novel that said something along the lines that "this masterpiece is his greatest work yet has some of his greatest flaws".
> I didn't understand how a great masterpiece could be flawed ... but 40 years of avid reading (and listening to music and looking at art) have improved my knowledge and understanding, and it is clear that works of genius are seldom perfect - they are the results of *human* endeavour


I didn't mean it that seriously - was just noting that a common observation about Mozart also applies to the Bible.

Of course I only pay attention to the good stuff.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

TurnaboutVox said:


> There is some serious idealisation of Mozart going on here, almost, one might say, as if there is a need to deify him


You don't need to deify someone who's better than a deity.



TurnaboutVox said:


> and put him beyond any criticism.


Nobody does this.



TurnaboutVox said:


> Perhaps there is some anxiety that the whole edifice may be punctured if doubt is allowed to intrude?


On the contrary, the most anxious side is clearly the one that wants to smash the edifice and maybe can't.


----------



## Stirling

Mozart did more while alive than the vast majority of people.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Yeah, but Schubert did more while dead.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

isorhythm said:


> I didn't mean it that seriously


I see. OK

Its difficult in some of the posts in the last few pages of this thread to distinguish between the throw-away comments that are intended to be humorous and the nonsense comments that should just be thrown away


----------



## DavidA

The gentleman who commented "I'm just someone who recognizes that good minuets and frothy rondo finales are rarely, if ever, worthy of being called amazing masterpieces" does not appear to realise Mozart wrote other things. Yet even in the incidental music he wrote for commission to earn his bread (not masterpieces we admit) he reached a perfection not exceeded by anyone since!


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> You are very selective in making your main point - which is to establish that Mozart is not as great as the general and professional musical world thinks.
> The prague is the point where Mozart started to approach his zenith as a symphonic composer - the first mvt does indeed exceed the other two by light years. But the last 3 symphonies are great down to the last movt, the last bar. Listen to some of the PCs - PC23 for example - 3 utterly superb mvts - the Haydn quartets - all sublime through and through - the clarinet concerto etc etc - I could go on. Yes there are works not of the first rank even when he was at his peak. But what does that matter if you find an occasional grey pearl in a chest of rubies. Did Beethoven not compose wellington's victory? and many more works that do not match the rank of the odd number symphonies. I dont think you know Mozart as well as you think you do.
> You make the mistake of assuming that Mozart did compose profound music simply because of the nature of his audience - well sorry but you are wrong - and the great composers and conductors of history disagree with you.


You've read a tremendous amount into my remarks. I really don't know or care what the "general and professional musical world" thinks, and I'm not sure that anyone should be speaking for it, whoever it consists of. But I gather that Mozart is widely considered one of the top few composers in history, and I have absolutely no quarrel with that assessment. Pressed to offer a judgment, I'd rate him there too, but I'm not inclined to try to rank people at that level of brilliance. In fact it's what I consider the immoderate adulation of "the divine Mozart," enshrining him "head and shoulders" above everyone past, present, and to come, that provokes me to comment in the first place.

EdwardBast expressed an opinion; I basically agree with what he said. Why the outrage? I find Mozart as nearly perfect at what he did as any composer could be - as perfect as Bach, let's say, and maybe more perfect than Beethoven. "At what he did" is the important phrase there, and in that phrase is probably the difference in our estimates of him. I simply don't find what Mozart did, work to work and movement to movement, as interesting and powerful as what some other composers did. Am I "wrong"? Maybe. But that's my view.

We really can't know what Mozart would have done had he been composing for a different audience - i.e in a different culture and era. But it's safe to say that his own culture, era and audience had something - quite a bit, I think - to do with what sorts of works he turned out. It was not yet time for artists to regard themselves as avatars of a higher message to which audiences should learn to listen (or to whom they might even say "who cares if you listen" - and yes, I know Babbitt didn't actually say that, exactly).

As far as my not knowing Mozart as well as I think I do, how well do you think I think I know him?


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> You are still asking me to recant something I didn't write! Jeez man, accuracy is not that difficult.


"And Mozart's masterpieces in the genre, while obviously towering achievements, are few in number."


----------



## Woodduck

Harold in Columbia said:


> Mozart is better than the Bible.
> 
> Wagner did indeed contribute as much to opera as Verdi - but not as much as Mozart.


I'm not sure which of these statements makes less sense. The first can stand as a comic turn; the second just ain't funny. Wagner contributed only as much to opera as Verdi, and less than Mozart? Explain please.


----------



## Biwa

Woodduck said:


> I simply don't find what Mozart did, work to work and movement to movement, as interesting and powerful as what some other composers did. Am I "wrong"?


That's not right or wrong.

But, I could easily say the same thing about the music every other composer did.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> We really can't know what Mozart would have done had he been composing for a different audience - i.e in a different culture and era. But it's safe to say that his own culture, era and audience had something - quite a bit, I think - to do with what sorts of works he turned out.


This is equally true of Beethoven though, (and every composer in existence). I don't think it is fair or logical to fault composers pre-Beethoven for the fact that music wasn't widely appreciated at the time as a serious art form. This is an issue with the audience - not the composers. Sure there may have been certain expectations in place on pre-Romantic composers, but it doesn't change the fact that composers like Bach, Mozart and Haydn were able to transcend what people thought about music and go beyond the average listeners expectations of what music could do.

I think the great composers before Beethoven always had important things to say in their music - equally as important as Beethoven - and should not be faulted for the fact that it took the general public a good long while to catch up.


----------



## Skilmarilion

stomanek said:


> No opera composer contributed more to opera - not even Verdi.


What does this even mean? 

No one takes issue with the fact that Mozart wrote some bloody sublime operas. What doesn't make sense are these sorts of unsupported remarks implying that Mozart is absolutely untouchable vs. any other important opera composer.



trazom said:


> I'm not sure why these things have to be something the music is "hidden" behind. Many people might love an opera solely on the strength of the music and buy CDs of the opera to listen to the music on its own without any visual component, or even following the plot by reading the libretto. Not much chance of hiding the music behind gimmicks and distractions in those cases.


I agree. My point was that simply the nature of opera and its extra-musical elements make it different to writing music without those elements. I don't agree that writing opera is "more difficult", because the contrasting nature of a piano sonata or quartet means that their composition requires solving different, yet equally challenging problems.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Woodduck said:


> I simply don't find what Mozart did, work to work and movement to movement, as interesting and powerful as what some other composers did. Am I "wrong"?


I don't know if you're "wrong," but you are wrong.


----------



## trazom

tdc said:


> I don't think it is fair or logical to fault composers pre-Beethoven for the fact that music wasn't widely appreciated at the time as a serious art form. This is an issue with the audience - not the composers.


It's also a logical fallacy(genetic fallacy), that the expectations of the audience, esteem composers were held in, or the occasion for which a piece was written somehow precludes that composer from writing genuinely great music.



Skilmarilion said:


> I agree. My point was that simply the nature of opera and its extra-musical elements make it different to writing music without those elements. I don't agree that writing opera is "more difficult", because the contrasting nature of a piano sonata or quartet means that their composition requires solving different, yet equally challenging problems.


I agree about the difference in challenges and it's always possible I misread your post, but the example you used, the composer talking about symphonies compared with quartets, implied they weren't just different, but that one was more difficult than the other because of less opportunities to "hide." At least, that's how I interpreted it.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> This is equally true of Beethoven though, (and every composer in existence). I don't think it is fair or logical to fault composers pre-Beethoven for the fact that music wasn't widely appreciated at the time as a serious art form. This is an issue with the audience - not the composers. Sure there may have been certain expectations in place on pre-Romantic composers, but it doesn't change the fact that composers like Bach, Mozart and Haydn were able to transcend what people thought about music and go beyond the average listeners expectations of what music could do.
> 
> I think the great composers before Beethoven always had important things to say in their music - equally as important as Beethoven - and should not be faulted for the fact that it took the general public a good long while to catch up.


I don't disagree that Classical composers of genius exceeded their job requirements. I simply find a large proportion of those innumerable Classical "minuets and frothy rondos" (I can't improve on EdwardBast's terms), not to mention the multi-movement divertimenti, serenades, cassations, contredances and whatnot, to be expertly written "light classical" music which simply doesn't aim to be, and usually doesn't amount to, more than that. That doesn't imply any condemnation of it; light, frothy, entertaining music is perfectly legitimate, and can require as much talent and skill to do well as any other music. In fact it makes an even larger demand on a composer's melodic invention, since having good tunes is the primary thing that makes light music engaging and successful. Later on, Johann Strauss was terrific at it, and both Wagner and Brahms (and most other contemporaries) loved his stuff and envied his fertility of invention and his ability to exceed the requirements of the popular dance-music genre (Brahms envied it, anyway; I don't think Wagner ever said).

That the greatest composers of the time - Mozart and Haydn - brought unusual compositional powers and inventiveness to the job of writing light music is admirable, but I don't think they imagined that their entertainments were profound masterworks, or considered them of equal significance to their more serious and ambitious efforts. In fact Haydn said (wistfully and perhaps wearily) that he wished someone would invent a "really new minuet" - a wish probably granted after his death by Beethoven's transformation of that tired old dance into the dynamic and constantly original scherzos of his own symphonies, quartets, and so on. In the Classical symphony the first movement was the locus of a composer's most serious musical thinking, and only gradually did the other movements approach the first in seriousness of intent, complexity of form, and depth of expression. I find this obvious and don't see why pointing it out should bother anyone. How we respond to these works is an individual matter.


----------



## Woodduck

Harold in Columbia said:


> I don't know if you're "wrong," but you are wrong.


You are wrong to say that I'm wrong.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Woodduck said:


> In fact Haydn said (wistfully and perhaps wearily) that he wished someone would invent a "really new minuet" - a wish probably granted after his death by Beethoven's transformation of that tired old dance into the dynamic and constantly original scherzos of his own symphonies, quartets, and so on.


You think Beethoven invented the scherzo (which is not a transformation of the minuet, it just takes its place in symphonies and string quartets). You know essentially nothing about Haydn.


----------



## Woodduck

Biwa said:


> That's not right or wrong.
> 
> But, I could easily say the same thing about the music every other composer did.


Go right ahead. I would not contradict you. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

Harold in Columbia said:


> You think Beethoven invented the scherzo (which is not a transformation of the minuet, it just takes its place in symphonies and string quartets). You know essentially nothing about one of the two composers you've been opining on for multiple pages.


I did not say that Beethoven invented the scherzo.

Both minuets and scherzos are in triple rhythm, one being quicker. I wasn't using "transformation" in the sense of one literally turning into the other, so keep your shirt on.

And there's _no_ excuse for rudeness.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

I wasn't rude. I said you know essentially nothing about Haydn.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Harold in Columbia said:


> Yeah, but Schubert did more while dead.


I don't know what this is supposed to mean but Schubert was more prolific than Mozart.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Inside joke. People kept finding and publishing previously unknown works by Schubert for decades after he died.


----------



## Woodduck

Harold in Columbia said:


> I wasn't rude. I said you know essentially nothing about Haydn.


"Essentially," you don't know _what_ I know about Haydn, and your presumptuous statement that I know _essentially nothing_ about him, along with your reference to what I've been "opining about for multiple pages," is rude. You may have removed that last bit from your post, but not in time to keep it out of the _"Originally posted by"_ bubble in my response.

Censor yourself before you publish next time.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Woodduck said:


> along with your reference to what I've been "opining about for multiple pages," is rude. You may have removed that last bit from your post


I edited that because I thought the original might be insufficiently clear. If you would like me to change it back, let me know and I will.


----------



## Woodduck

Harold in Columbia said:


> I edited that because I thought the original might be insufficiently clear. If you would like me to change it back, let me know and I will.


You didn't think the words "you know essentially nothing" were sufficiently clear? Please.

Do what you like with the post. Just don't be telling people they know nothing about a subject when _you_ know nothing about what they do or do not know.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Woodduck said:


> You didn't think the words "you know essentially nothing" were sufficiently clear?


I didn't think it was sufficiently clear that Haydn was the composer I was referring to.


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from comments about other members. The topic is Mozart and why people call him a genius.


----------



## Biwa

Woodduck said:


> In fact Haydn said (wistfully and perhaps wearily) that he wished someone would invent a "really new minuet" - a wish probably granted after his death by Beethoven's transformation of that tired old dance into the dynamic and constantly original scherzos of his own symphonies, quartets, and so on...
> 
> ...I find this obvious and don't see why pointing it out should bother anyone. How we respond to these works is an individual matter.


I understand what you meant. Beethoven certainly beefed up many parts of the Classical symphony to thrilling effect.

Speaking of Haydn, though... I am always astonished & deeply moved by his seemingly simple minuets (particularly those of the late quartets and London symphonies) such is their inventiveness and beauty. May I say...powerful works indeed! :tiphat:


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> In the Classical symphony the first movement was the locus of a composer's most serious musical thinking, and *only gradually did the other movements approach the first in seriousness of intent, complexity of form, and depth of expression.* I find this obvious and don't see why pointing it out should bother anyone. How we respond to these works is an individual matter.


You may be able to clearly show there was increased complexity of form, but the seriousness of intent and depth of expression claims will get into shaky territory. I think it is easy to be swayed by ones own preferences on such matters. As far as being more complex it doesn't necessarily make something better, nor does the seriousness of intent. To an individual not as into Beethoven's music what you hear as depth of expression could come across as someone just trying too hard to be grand and epic. In the movements of the Prague you consider throwaways I hear more joy and exhilaration than I hear in any of Beethoven's symphonies (yes including the 6th).

Finally, what is obvious to me is that having unrestricted freedoms on an art form does not necessarily mean a society will produce better art. Look at music today, there is an unprecedented amount of freedom composers have as well as a vast wealth of styles to draw upon. Are we pumping out Bach, Mozart and Beethoven caliber composers? I think most would say no.


----------



## ArtMusic

tdc said:


> ...
> Finally, what is obvious to me is that having unrestricted freedoms on an art form does not necessarily mean a society will produce better art. Look at music today, there is an unprecedented amount of freedom composers have as well as a vast wealth of styles to draw upon. Are we pumping out Bach, Mozart and Beethoven caliber composers? I think most would say no.


Agree entirely. What is also important is that modern relativism further dilutes whether a society will produce better art.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I'm with you on that. I believe masterpieces can certainly be flawed. My favorites usually are. Conversely, flawless works can be mediocre. Or don't you buy that corollary?


In my view flawless also implies the quality of invention - lesser composers can write structurally perfect movements - get everything right musically - but if they cant come up with a decent tune it's not going to be much good is it! Fortunetly Mozart had it all - total knowledge of composition and a great inventor of beautiful melodies. haydn said M had taste + a profound knowledge of composition.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't know what this is supposed to mean but Schubert was more prolific than Mozart.


No he wasnt - most of his 1000 works is in lieder.
he comp 8 sy
no concertos
1 or 2 operas (virt unknown)
a dozen notable chamber works inc violin
a few unknown masses
solo piano - about the same as mozart
and he composed more lieder than mozart of course
let me know if I missed something


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> No he wasnt - most of his 1000 works is in lieder.
> he comp 8 sy
> no concertos
> 1 or 2 operas (virt unknown)
> a dozen notable chamber works inc violin
> a few unknown masses
> solo piano - about the same as mozart
> and he composed more lieder than mozart of course
> let me know if I missed something


Schubert wrote more than 2 operas and his masses aren't unknown. His late masses are very well regarded. Plus you forgot the Rosamunde incidental music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chronochromie said:


> Schubert wrote more than 2 operas and his masses aren't unknown. His late masses are very well regarded. Plus you forgot the Rosamunde incidental music.


most of his operas are unfinished I think - fragments.
Fierrabas is a fine work


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> In my view flawless also implies the quality of invention - lesser composers can write structurally perfect movements - get everything right musically - but if they cant come up with a decent tune it's not going to be much good is it! Fortunetly Mozart had it all - total knowledge of composition and a great inventor of beautiful melodies. haydn said M had taste + a profound knowledge of composition.


I agree with the values you find important and with Haydn's evaluation of Mozart, but not with your usage. The primary meaning of flawless is "without defect"; It does not convey a positive value, only the absence of a negative one (except perhaps when one is discussing gems, where absence of defect _is_ among the most essential positive qualities). Using the word "flawless" to cover virtues like quality of invention just dilutes its meaning and doesn't convey what you are trying to express. After all, it is perfectly correct to say: "This is a flawless cubic zirconium," thus describing an object that is the epitome of mediocrity, but without defect. It is, therefore, perfect and precise usage to describe a mediocre but well-crafted musical work as flawless, even though it might be quite uninteresting. And used this way it is humorous as well, an example of damning with faint praise. If what you are trying to convey is quality of invention, it would be much better to just say that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I agree with the values you find important and with Haydn's evaluation of Mozart, but not with your usage. The primary meaning of flawless is "without defect"; It does not convey a positive value, only the absence of a negative one (except perhaps when one is discussing gems, where absence of defect _is_ among the most essential positive qualities). Using the word "flawless" to cover virtues like quality of invention just dilutes its meaning and doesn't convey what you are trying to express. After all, it is perfectly correct to say: "This is a flawless cubic zirconium," thus describing an object that is the epitome of mediocrity, but without defect. It is, therefore, perfect and precise usage to describe a mediocre but well-crafted musical work as flawless, even though it might be quite uninteresting. If what you are trying to convey is quality of invention, it would be much better to just say that.


you are right
a square may well be flawless in its dimensions as a square (ie 4 equal sides) - but may not be interesting as an object to perceive


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Depends on what you consider a defect.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

ArtMusic said:


> What is also important is that modern relativism further dilutes whether a society will produce better art.


I think the more basic problem is modern disillusionment. So even people who don't want to be relativists don't know where to start.


----------



## Fugue Meister

stomanek said:


> No he wasnt - most of his 1000 works is in lieder.
> he comp 8 sy
> no concertos
> 1 or 2 operas (virt unknown)
> a dozen notable chamber works inc violin
> a few unknown masses
> solo piano - about the same as mozart
> and he composed more lieder than mozart of course
> let me know if I missed something


In terms of how many years they wrote music, to total hours of music output, Schubert was the more prolific of the two. Technically Telemann was the most prolific or Simon Sechter depending on who you ask...

Never fear stomanek I love Mozart's music way more the the more prolific Schubert, Telemann or Sechter.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Avey said:


> *But why are these labels, specifically "genius," so readily applied to Mozart, specifically considering the depth of music created before and after him?*
> 
> *So, why? Is it a fair label? Is it "fair," but could equally apply to any composer? Does it matter? Or, maybe you don't notice this standard characterization of Mozart?*


To the first question, I think there are many reasons why "genius" seems so easily applicable to Mozart, but I'll mention one that may be at the root of it: I don't know of any composer whose best music is so consistently musically/intellectually dense that it yields great rewards with analysis and study, yet is also so consistently accessible/enjoyable on the most superficial levels, even if it's just the prevalence of memorable melodies or emotional content. When you think of the other two of "The Big 3," Bach was probably more rigorously intellectual, Beethoven probably more profound, but I tend to find that both exhaust me more than Mozart, requiring that I be in the right mood. Mozart seems to fit any mood, and I think it's rare to find a composer that universal who was the farthest thing away from banal (if anything, far more original than many give him credit for).

As to the second, yes, I think it's a fair label and, yes, I think it can be applied to many composers. Bach and Beethoven were most certainly geniuses themselves, Wagner, Haydn, and Handel probably as well. I think a great many composers had moments--some more than others--of genius. Can anyone listen to and understand the music of Brahms's 4th Symphony and not think him a genius, at least in the composition of that piece?


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> You may be able to clearly show there was increased complexity of form, but the seriousness of intent and depth of expression claims will get into shaky territory. I think it is easy to be swayed by ones own preferences on such matters. As far as being more complex it doesn't necessarily make something better, nor does the seriousness of intent. To an individual not as into Beethoven's music what you hear as depth of expression could come across as someone just trying too hard to be grand and epic. In the movements of the Prague you consider throwaways I hear more joy and exhilaration than I hear in any of Beethoven's symphonies (yes including the 6th).
> 
> Finally, what is obvious to me is that having unrestricted freedoms on an art form does not necessarily mean a society will produce better art. Look at music today, there is an unprecedented amount of freedom composers have as well as a vast wealth of styles to draw upon. Are we pumping out Bach, Mozart and Beethoven caliber composers? I think most would say no.


What I called "depth of expression" applies not necessarily, or only, to a movement taken in isolation, but to the added meaning it might acquire when experienced as part of a work in which the several movements constitute a meaningful, as opposed to merely a pleasing, sequence. It took some time for symphonies to be conceived this way - to evolve from what is essentially a suite into an organic musical narrative with the kind of cohesive purpose which during most of the Classical period belonged mostly to the sonata-allegro first movement. Beethoven did more than anyone to bring this narrative integration about, discharging and resolving in later movements the energies and tensions created in the previous ones, and we can perceive in the final movements of his works significances created in large part by their position in the works they belong to. His movements really "need" each other, and one result of this is that, much more than in most of the works of his predecessors, the movements are radically non-interchangeable from work to work. This is not to deny the aesthetic integrity of multi-movement works composed earlier (which I'd better say because if I don't someone is bound to point to some work of Mozart or Haydn as a "correction"). After Beethoven, of course, composers continued to look for ways to unify the symphony, to the point of conceiving it as a single-movement work in which sections, if perceivable as such, are unified both thematically and narratively.

I agree completely with your second paragraph, and don't think it contradicts any previous point about the social expectations under which composers at various times have functioned. No period has ever "pumped out" Bachs and Mozarts; but too much freedom is as problematic for the artist as too little, and, I think, even more of a hindrance to the creation of a fully developed, mature art capable of carrying a deep expressive burden. The "freedom" of modern classical music, and its difficulty, is the absence of a strong and nourishing tradition with a common vocabulary which audiences understand and which artists can use to communicate with them, building upon the familiar and traditional to present the new and challenging without negating basic elements which allow listeners to perceive the new as an expansion of the old. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner had such a tradition and language to build on, and which they could use as material for making art which exceeded that of their contemporaries in richness and power. Our contemporary smorgasbord of world music, however productive of stimulating blendings and juxtapositions of influences, is a world quite different from that of the composers now ensconced as "masters," and it remains to be seen what parts of the present world of "no boundaries" will congeal into something that speaks as profoundly to as many people and for as long a time as their work has done.

That's my own view of things, and I expect plenty of disagreement, so fire away. :tiphat:


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Woodduck said:


> This is not to deny the aesthetic integrity of multi-movement works composed earlier


Of course it is.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> The "freedom" of modern classical music, and its difficulty, is the absence of a strong and nourishing tradition with a common vocabulary which audiences understand and which artists can use to communicate with them, building upon the familiar and traditional to present the new and challenging without negating basic elements which allow listeners to perceive the new as an expansion of the old.


A good point, and one I find is true in all the arts. In poetry, the critic William Logan once said of John Ashbery that (paraphrased) "one gets the feeling that anything can happen in an Ashbery poem, and the problem is it often does." That got me thinking about how much the demolishing of commonly understood traditions in the arts eliminates the ability to surprise, because if there are no expectations crated by tradition, then everything (and thus nothing) is surprising. Of course, it's possible that what seems incoherent to us today may have its own logic that future generations will come to understand as readily as we now understand Mozart and Beethoven, or in poetry, Wordsworth and Coleridge--all of whom were, at various times, perceived as incomprehensible (or near to it) by their contemporaries.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In poetry, the critic William Logan once said of John Ashbery that (paraphrased) "one gets the feeling that anything can happen in an Ashbery poem, and the problem is it often does."


Rip off! That was previously Howard Dietz on Lorenz Hart ("can rhyme anything - and does").

Anyway, with regard to the high arts, such complaints are just posing - attendants of one small party complaining because Schönberg and Ashbery are attending a different small party - because the old masters don't share a common language with today's audience either. Only today's popular entertainment does that.


----------



## Klassic

I hate to break it to all those optimistic, go-lucky Mozart fans, but if you want to study genius you have to study Schoenberg; everyone knows that Schoenberg was ten times the genius of Mozart. Sorry but the truth is the truth.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Harold in Columbia said:


> Rip off! That was previously Howard Dietz on Lorenz Hart ("can rhyme anything - and does").
> 
> Anyway, with regard to the high arts, such complaints are just posing - attendants of one small party complaining because Schönberg and Ashbery are attending a different small party - because the old masters don't share a common language with today's audience either. Only today's popular entertainment does that.


Ha! It's close, though I'm not sure if it's similar enough to definitively declare a ripoff, but could very well be.

Popular entertainment shares a common language with more people, and it definitely has its tradition; but even for the more limited classical music or poetry audience it's hard to deny that more "understand" Mozart and Keats than Boulez and Ashbery. There are many possible reasons why this is so, but it seems to me like poetry and classical music at some point lost something essential from their traditions that could appeal to broader audiences as well as to the enthusiasts. If I were to hazard a guess, with poetry I think it was meter and rhyme, and with classical I think it was melody and traditional forms. Are their poets and composers that have become popular without either? Yes, but it seems that at some point a great many people lost interest with those that tried to push those innovations farther.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Ha! It's close, though I'm not sure if it's similar enough to definitively declare a ripoff, but could very well be.
> 
> Popular entertainment shares a common language with more people, and it definitely has its tradition; but even for the more limited classical music or poetry audience it's hard to deny that more "understand" Mozart and Keats than Boulez and Ashbery. There are many possible reasons why this is so, but it seems to me like poetry and classical music at some point lost something essential from their traditions that could appeal to broader audiences as well as to the enthusiasts. If I were to hazard a guess, with poetry I think it was meter and rhyme, and with classical I think it was* melody and traditional forms*. Are their poets and composers that have become popular without either? Yes, but it seems that at some point a great many people lost interest with those that tried to push those innovations farther.


And what, for centuries, and in cultures around the world, underlay and gave coherence to melody and form?

Tonality.

_[Woodduck ducks behind large overstuffed chair]_


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> And what, for centuries, and in cultures around the world, underlay and gave coherence to melody and form?
> 
> Tonality.
> 
> _[Woodduck ducks behind large overstuffed chair]_


I'm pretty sure that the traditional music of many cultures is not tonal, though. Maybe someone who knows more about this can comment.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chronochromie said:


> I'm pretty sure that the traditional music of many cultures is not tonal, though. Maybe someone who knows more about this can comment.


It's only tonal when being used as a stick by reactionaries to attack things they don't like.


----------



## EdwardBast

Chronochromie said:


> I'm pretty sure that the traditional music of many cultures is not tonal, though. Maybe someone who knows more about this can comment.


I think lots of Western European folk music and secular song used the same basic materials as the "art music" of whatever day. Troubadour songs sound diatonic and modal. The thematic structures of Classical Era music are closely related to folk songs. (Denes Bartha, who collected folk music with Bartok, develops this idea in his theories about Classical Era thematic structure.) So my best guess would be W.E. folk music was modal when art music was modal, tonal when it became tonal. Lots of cross-pollination. As for the rest of the world, I haven't a clue …


----------



## Woodduck

Now that the expected (blunt) arrows have begun to fly (yawn), I will remind the archers that tonality has more than one definition, and that Western "common practice" is the narrower one. When music is studied from a neurological, psychological, anthropological, or evolutionary perspective, a broader definition of tonality, which includes modality, is accepted as more basic, encompassing, and useful. 

In that definition, tonality refers to the recognition of a specific note (or, sometimes, notes) of a musical scale as having certain unique, central functions in the organization of musical material, serving variously as a point of origin, a final destination, a stabilizer, a point of rest, and a determinant of other hierarchical relationships among notes of whatever scale the music utilizes. This "tonic" note, and the organization of music around it, the latter most often including a position of secondary importance given the fifth note above the tonic, is found in indigenous musics worldwide, whether they are purely melodic or harmonic in character. Western harmonic music has elaborated the most complex system of hierarchies around the tonic, and these harmonic relationships have engendered a great number and complexity of forms, and constitute a basic aspect of formal coherence. But the formal structure of non-common-practice music also exhibits hierarchies - relative degrees of importance among notes - and specific melodic and harmonic (the latter perhaps only implicit) functions in relation to a tonic.

So yes, the traditional music of many cultures (perhaps most, if my reading does not mislead) is tonal; it simply doesn't use the common practice harmonic elaboration of the basic tonal idea, but elaborates it in different ways. 

And no, the music of those cultures is not "only tonal when being used as a stick by reactionaries to attack things they don't like." Frankly, I have no idea to whom you are referring.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

If the arrows really are blunt, one doesn't have to say they are.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Klassic said:


> I hate to break it to all those optimistic, go-lucky Mozart fans, but if you want to study genius you have to study Schoenberg; everyone knows that Schoenberg was ten times the genius of Mozart. Sorry but the truth is the truth.


No composer held Mozart in higher esteem than Schoenberg. He once raged at Gershwin when the latter implied Mozart's quartets were simple.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Fugue Meister said:


> In terms of how many years they wrote music, to total hours of music output, Schubert was the more prolific of the two. Technically Telemann was the most prolific or Simon Sechter depending on who you ask...
> 
> Never fear stomanek I love Mozart's music way more the the more prolific Schubert, Telemann or Sechter.


The Brilliant Classics edition of Mozart is 170 CDs
Schubert on Brilliant Classics is 69 CDs (hyperion's complete schubert lieder is 40 CDs so I think this BC set is complete more or less)

Mozart lived 5 years longer than Schubert so I think I'm right?
Not trying to denigrate Schubert in any way as I rank him the second great musical talent ever born.
anyway with both composers we see quantity and quality. There were of course more prolific composers - just not better.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

It's possible for music to have a tonal grammar that doesn't resolve to a major triad, minor triad, or open fifth. Just look at Schoenberg. And it's possible for this resolution to be both syntactically and emotionally satisfying. Again, just look at Schoenberg.

And finally, for the last time, modality that emphasizes a triad or note through rhythmic emphasis is not the same thing as tonal hierarchy and gravitation. Schoenberg has much more gravitation and goal than modal music, both on paper and in sound, mood, and feeling. Do you seriously hear a tonal resolution at a modal cadence, as if a harmonic tension got released?

Listen to Schoenberg's De Profundis 



 Don't you hear drive and rest and resolution? Then listen to Josquin. 



 Do you hear drive and rest and resolution? Especially the ending: does the ending sound like a harmonic resting place?

Which piece has chordal sonorities whose use is tension and goal? Do different chords in Josquin provide for differing heirarchy of tension? Do phrases end in Josquin as a relaxing of tension or a succession of hierarchies, or is the phrase ending merely melodic and modal? What about Schoenberg?


----------



## DavidA

Klassic said:


> I hate to break it to all those optimistic, go-lucky Mozart fans, but if you want to study genius you have to study Schoenberg; everyone knows that Schoenberg was ten times the genius of Mozart. Sorry but the truth is the truth.


Oh please! :lol: :lol::lol:


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> View attachment 80786
> .......................


Where's the evidence that Farnsworth doesn't like Kanye West???



Avey said:


> *But why are these labels, specifically "genius," so readily applied to Mozart, specifically considering the depth of music created before and after him?*


Whether he is or not a genius is not the same issue as whether labels are too easily applied. Borrowing others' ideas is common enough, especially if it's the received wisdom. The fact that before and after him there were other geniuses doesn't invalidate its application to WAM.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mozart was a genius. Correlate how old he was when he wrote what quality works he composed proves it. Pure and simple.

For example, this supreme example for the bassoon concerto (which is the greatest concerto ever written for that instrument) was composed when he was eighteen.


----------



## Fugue Meister

stomanek said:


> The Brilliant Classics edition of Mozart is 170 CDs
> Schubert on Brilliant Classics is 69 CDs (hyperion's complete schubert lieder is 40 CDs so I think this BC set is complete more or less)
> 
> Mozart lived 5 years longer than Schubert so I think I'm right?
> Not trying to denigrate Schubert in any way as I rank him the second great musical talent ever born.
> anyway with both composers we see quantity and quality. There were of course more prolific composers - just not better.


I really don't even care for Schubert all that much (with a few exceptions) but we're talking years composing not years live. Mozart started composing at 4, so his total composition time would be 31 years, his total output in hours of music 202 = 6.51 hours of music per year. Schubert began composing at 12 (or 13 but I'll do the figures with 12), total composition time 19 years, his total output in hours 134 = 7.05 hours of music per year.

You may say I'm grasping at straws but whatever, I still love Mozart better.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

ArtMusic said:


> For example, this supreme example for the bassoon concerto (which is the greatest concerto ever written for that instrument) was composed when he was eighteen.


As far as I know, there's just never been a great bassoon concerto, but I would put Vivaldi's in E minor, RV 484 over that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Fugue Meister said:


> I really don't even care for Schubert all that much (with a few exceptions) but we're talking years composing not years live. Mozart started composing at 4, so his total composition time would be 31 years, his total output in hours of music 202 = 6.51 hours of music per year. Schubert began composing at 12 (or 13 but I'll do the figures with 12), total composition time 19 years, his total output in hours 134 = 7.05 hours of music per year.
> 
> You may say I'm grasping at straws but whatever, I still love Mozart better.


how does 69 CDs equate to 134 hours of music? CDs contain typically 70 minutes.
Mozart composed little from the age of 4 to 12 (I think up to maybe k100) so deduct 1/5th of his 200 hours and it still leaves Schubert way behind.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

I would say the relevant fact is that, when he reached the age at which Schubert died, Mozart had already written: the _Jeunehomme_ and the Vienna piano concertos up through No. 24 in C minor (and also No. 25, but who cares); the sinfonia concertante for violin and viola; the string quintets in C major and G minor, K. 515 and 516; the Haydn quartets; the unfinished Mass in C minor; the piano sonata in C minor and fantasia in the same key, K. 457 and 475 (I can never keep those catalog numbers straight); the _Prague_ symphony; and _Idomeneo_, _The Abduction from the Seraglio_, *and* _The Marriage of Figaro_ *and* _Don Giovanni_.

With all the Olympian respect due to Schubert, Mozart wins.

(And if anything, that comparison is stacked in favor of Schubert, who began writing masterpieces at 17 - "Gretchen am Spinnrade" - while Mozart didn't get started until 21 - the _Jeunehomme_ - so the later composer had a four year head start.)


----------



## PlaySalieri

ArtMusic said:


> Mozart was a genius. Correlate how old he was when he wrote what quality works he composed proves it. Pure and simple.
> 
> For example, this supreme example for the bassoon concerto (which is the greatest concerto ever written for that instrument) was composed when he was eighteen.


It's a beautiful little work - but there are 20th century basson concertos which you probably would not enjoy - but I suppose surpass it in some technical way.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Harold in Columbia said:


> I would say the relevant fact is that, when he reached the age at which Schubert died, Mozart had already written: the _Jeunehomme_ and the Vienna piano concertos up through No. 24 in C minor (and also No. 25, but who cares); the sinfonia concertante for violin and viola; the string quintets in C major and G minor, K. 515 and 516; the Haydn quartets; the unfinished Mass in C minor; the piano sonata in C minor and fantasia in the same key, K. 457 and 475 (I can never keep those catalog numbers straight); the _Prague_ symphony; and _Idomeneo_, _The Abduction from the Seraglio_, *and* _The Marriage of Figaro_ *and* _Don Giovanni_.
> 
> With all the Olympian respect due to Schubert, Mozart wins.
> 
> (And if anything, that comparison is stacked in favor of Schubert, who began writing masterpieces at 17 - "Gretchen am Spinnrade" - while Mozart didn't get started until 21 - the _Jeunehomme_ - so the later composer had a four year head start.)


That wasn't my assertion at all, I said most prolific (encompassing all composed work), prolificacy doesn't take into account masterpieces unless that was a given factor to begin with, which it was not.

Having said this I shall state again, Mozart is better and if this was about the ratio of masterpieces Mozart bests Schubert tremendously.


----------



## ArtMusic

Harold in Columbia said:


> As far as I know, there's just never been a great bassoon concerto, but I would put Vivaldi's in E minor, RV 484 over that.


Speak with any bassoon player and they will pick Mozart's concerto as their favorite. Pure and simple.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Who cares? See Hitchcock on actors.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Harold in Columbia said:


> I would say the relevant fact is that, when he reached the age at which Schubert died, Mozart had already written: the _Jeunehomme_ and the Vienna piano concertos up through No. 24 in C minor (and also No. 25, but who cares); the sinfonia concertante for violin and viola; the string quintets in C major and G minor, K. 515 and 516; the Haydn quartets; the unfinished Mass in C minor; the piano sonata in C minor and fantasia in the same key, K. 457 and 475 (I can never keep those catalog numbers straight); the _Prague_ symphony; and _Idomeneo_, _The Abduction from the Seraglio_, *and* _The Marriage of Figaro_ *and* _Don Giovanni_.
> 
> With all the Olympian respect due to Schubert, Mozart wins.
> 
> (And if anything, that comparison is stacked in favor of Schubert, who began writing masterpieces at 17 - "Gretchen am Spinnrade" - while Mozart didn't get started until 21 - the _Jeunehomme_ - so the later composer had a four year head start.)


Mozart was composing great works much earlier than pc 9!
I would go all the way back to his great aria Lungi Da Te from an early opera composed at 14. He also composed exultate jubilate at 16 - sy 25 at 18 and the superb violin concertos at about 20. All really quite significant works well known. Not to diminish the importance of lieder of course.


----------



## PlaySalieri

ArtMusic said:


> Speak with any bassoon player and they will pick Mozart's concerto as their favorite. Pure and simple.


how could they not - probably the same with clarinetists and the great mozart concerto - and the horn concertos


----------



## poconoron

This little aria from Il Re Pastore K208 (composed at age 19) is quite the gem:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Harold in Columbia said:


> Who cares? See Hitchcock on actors.


And Hitchcock was right. Let actors do theater if they want more freedom and control.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Harold in Columbia said:


> I would say the relevant fact is that, when he reached the age at which Schubert died, Mozart had already written: the _Jeunehomme_ and the Vienna piano concertos up through No. 24 in C minor (and also No. 25, but who cares); the sinfonia concertante for violin and viola; the string quintets in C major and G minor, K. 515 and 516; the Haydn quartets; the unfinished Mass in C minor; the piano sonata in C minor and fantasia in the same key, K. 457 and 475 (I can never keep those catalog numbers straight); the _Prague_ symphony; and _Idomeneo_, _The Abduction from the Seraglio_, *and* _The Marriage of Figaro_ *and* _Don Giovanni_.
> 
> With all the Olympian respect due to Schubert, Mozart wins.
> 
> (And if anything, that comparison is stacked in favor of Schubert, who began writing masterpieces at 17 - "Gretchen am Spinnrade" - while Mozart didn't get started until 21 - the _Jeunehomme_ - so the later composer had a four year head start.)


the only other thing I would like to add is from your list you miss out so so many significant works. it would take too much time to list them.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Here it is (probably best ever aria composed by under 16)


----------



## poconoron

And a rather nice little overture composed to Lucio Silla K135 composed at age 16:


----------



## Guest

It appears then that the simple answer to the OP's question is that he's called a genius because he is, and not only that, but if he is, no one else can be...


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> It appears then that the simple answer to the OP's question is that he's called a genius because he is, and not only that, but if he is, no one else can be...


In fact the reverse - one thing I have noticed about Mozartians - is our love for who we believe is the best, our favourite - does not stop us from recognising other great music and composers. I have no hesitation for example in declaring Beethoven's violin concerto the top of the pile of great violin concertos.
I have met Handel devotees - and they listen to nothing else but handel and other baroque opera. and I have met avant gardist who wont listen to anything composed before 1950.


----------



## Skilmarilion

Right, if we really are to tackle this whole genius question, the music might - just might - give us the answer. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> In fact the reverse - one thing I have noticed about Mozartians - is our love for who we believe is the best, our favourite - does not stop us from recognising other great music and composers. I have no hesitation for example in declaring Beethoven's violin concerto the top of the pile of great violin concertos.
> I have met Handel devotees - and they listen to nothing else but handel and other baroque opera. and I have met avant gardist who wont listen to anything composed before 1950.


Frankly it would s beyond me how anybody ne could not enjoy Mozart's music. But each to his own.


----------



## Guest

Skilmarilion said:


> Right, if we really are to tackle this whole genius question, the music might - just might - give us the answer. :tiphat:


Which is, in effect, saying, "He is a genius, because he wrote self-evidently genius music."

That doesn't really tell us very much, does it? Unless I'm missing something? I mean, even if I agree that this is gorgeous music, and that he's a genius, it doesn't get us very far.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Which is, in effect, saying, "He is a genius, because he wrote self-evidently genius music."
> 
> That doesn't really tell us very much, does it? Unless I'm missing something? I mean, even if I agree that this is gorgeous music, and that he's a genius, it doesn't get us very far.


It doesn't? Ultimately, a person is judged a genius based primarily on accomplishments (whether scientific, mathematical, artistic or somesuch) that require an intellect that relatively few have. Supposedly, most of those on this forum are here because they have more experience, and a greater interest in, listening to classical music than average so the presentation of this work of Mozart is useful evidence as to why we are calling Mozart a genius.

Does that, in and of itself, prove the point. Not necessarily, but, to say it doesn't get us very far is IMO the other extreme.


----------



## SixFootScowl

How can we call anybody of Mozart's time a genius when we did not have a standard reference test to make such determination? It is a matter of opinion. Who knows. Maybe he was a genius. Maybe he was possessed?


----------



## Blancrocher

Florestan said:


> How can we call anybody of Mozart's time a genius when we did not have a standard reference test to make such determination? It is a matter of opinion. Who knows. Maybe he was a genius. Maybe he was possessed?


I favor the Mozart-was-a-member-of-a-superior-species-from-another-planet hypothesis. It's not clear to me, by the way, how he managed to inveigle himself into his "father" Leopold's household, which is something interesting to think about.


----------



## ArtMusic

stomanek said:


> how could they not - probably the same with clarinetists and the great mozart concerto - and the horn concertos


I agree entirely.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> It's possible for music to have a tonal grammar that doesn't resolve to a major triad, minor triad, or open fifth. Just look at Schoenberg. And it's possible for this resolution to be both syntactically and emotionally satisfying. Again, just look at Schoenberg.
> 
> And finally, for the last time, modality that emphasizes a triad or note through rhythmic emphasis is not the same thing as tonal hierarchy and gravitation. Schoenberg has much more gravitation and goal than modal music, both on paper and in sound, mood, and feeling. Do you seriously hear a tonal resolution at a modal cadence, as if a harmonic tension got released?
> 
> Listen to Schoenberg's De Profundis
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you hear drive and rest and resolution? Then listen to Josquin.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you hear drive and rest and resolution? Especially the ending: does the ending sound like a harmonic resting place?
> 
> Which piece has chordal sonorities whose use is tension and goal? Do different chords in Josquin provide for differing heirarchy of tension? Do phrases end in Josquin as a relaxing of tension or a succession of hierarchies, or is the phrase ending merely melodic and modal? What about Schoenberg?


I can't see how these observations are pertinent to the discussion (this whole thing of course being a diversion which probably no one looking at this thread is interested in). But since you ask...

Eva Yojimbo suggested that people were alienated from modern music because they weren't hearing the "melody and traditional forms" they were used to. I pointed out that a significant factor in the difficulty was the loss of tonal organization which had been important in making melody and form graspable. Chronochromie then observed that the traditional music of many cultures is not tonal, whereupon Mahlerian sarcastically commented that "it's only tonal when being used as a stick by reactionaries to attack things they don't like." Not willing to take that lying down, I observed that "tonality" as a broad concept includes more than Western common practice harmonic tonality, and that several disciplines which study music as a human phenomenon utilize the broader definition, which I then, to the best of my ability, gave.

I was not attempting to start a general discussion of harmonic organization. The fact that non-tonal music can exhibit differing degrees of "tension" is undeniable, but really irrelevant to the simple clarification of terms I was offering. A discussion of the "tonal grammar" and "syntactical organization" of Schoenberg might be interesting, especially if you want to describe in what sense his harmony conforms to a "grammar" and a "syntax," what the rules of that grammar and syntax are, and by what definition of tonality they exemplify a "tonal" system. I would love to see those rules and that definition.

As far as comparing the Schoenberg with the Josquin, the latter exhibits harmonies which progress according to, and within the expected conventions of, music in that style, in a way that those of the former, based on no such conventions, do not. Talk of "degrees of tension," a factor already inherent in the acoustics of harmony and only part of what tonality implies, should not distract us from the unmistakably hierarchical modal tonality (broad definition) according to which Josquin's music is ordered, and which is in any case well on its way toward common practice. If it were actually common practice, we would have to say that he ends on a dominant triad; but there's no reason to apply that criterion, which you're apparently trying to do. Yes, it does indeed reach a harmonic resting place, and most emphatically and beautifully, within its own system: a modal system, which is not opposed to the _principle_ of tonal hierarchy merely because it sounds to your "common-practiced" ears as if it doesn't end on the "tonic."

We can't know how Josquin's era, not yet common-practiced, heard his harmonies, but we can be pretty confident that his music did not constantly subvert the harmonic expectations his audiences had learned to hold. And this is the original point here, the point about Schoenberg and other post-tonal music that Eva Yojimbo was trying to make. Whether Schoenberg's harmonic progressions, in the particular work you cite or in many another, make sense in terms of some unspecified "tonal grammar," in terms of some other, non-tonal principle of organization, or not at all, is an academic question with which a listener ought not to have to concern himself. Josquin's contemporaries, listening to "Mille regretz," were not wondering by what theoretical justification each note followed the one before. And if he sometimes surprised their ears, as he no doubt did, the logic and delight of those surprises were not long in being appreciated as new inflections in a familiar language. And so it has been throughout most of music's history.

It seems that the Schoenberg proponents here will never permit themselves simply to acknowledge how radical the harmonic language of much post-tonal music is, and how talking about it in terms of "tonal grammar and syntax" really misrepresents it and will not make for it whatever case they wish to make. The evolution of tonality from modal monophony through late Romantic chromaticism is not difficult to trace, explain, and, most important, hear for most lovers of classical music. Neither, for that matter, are the floating, unresolved triadic harmonies of Debussy (whose tonal roots remain clear to most of us). If, as the proponents of atonality never tire of telling us, the innovations of earlier music were initially perplexing to some people, the fact is that the uncertainty was short-lived, and for good reason: the once "difficult" music of Beethoven and Wagner, being powerfully and _audibly_ tonal regardless of its complexity, conquered the classical listening world very quickly in historical terms, and piano reductions and, later, gramophone recordings of then-contemporary classical music were found in piano benches and on bookshelves everywhere - even in the homes of our grandparents, who knew little about music but knew a good tune or a beautiful harmony when they heard it, and had at least a sense, having nothing to do with social status, that classical music was something really special whether they "understood" it or not. Wagner and Debussy and Sibelius and Khachaturian were in my non-musician family's piano bench, sixty years ago. Schoenberg was not. Would he be in many of the piano benches of today, if folks like my grandparents and parents even had pianos? How could anyone honestly think so? Or is my postal worker secretly whistling tone rows after all?

It was the genius of Wagner to carry the chromatic subtilization of tonal harmony to extremes of complexity, tension, and ambiguity, while affirming even by obscuring it and holding its force temporarily in abeyance the magnetic power of his tonal foundation. Wagner tested the logic of tonality, as it were, by constructing longer and more complex syllogisms which, once grasped, revealed the strength of that logic redoubled. The common wisdom that what Schoenberg did was to carry Wagner's project even further and realize its so-called ultimate implications is flat-out wrong. To accept the fiction that he could employ neither key nor mode nor harmonic function and still produce something "tonal," with all the potentialities that tonality makes possible and more, is to make the concept of tonality itself meaningless and useless.

The music commonly called atonal is called that for the very good reason that its elements - its succession of pitches, its vertical harmonies, its fluctuating textures and tensions, and its formal dimensions - are not based on, do not assume or refer to, and are not governed by, a _tonal system_, and are not heard as doing so, regardless of what hints of tonality an ear accustomed to listening for them may project onto the music along the way. It would be nice to see an acknowledgement that it is quite legitimate for listeners to be baffled and displeased by harmonies whose underlying principle of organization their ear cannot detect, regardless of what other devices music might employ to create interest and coherence. Perhaps having their perceptions validated by some clarity and honesty about what distinguishes tonal from non-tonal music would allow some listeners to approach the music of Schoenberg and company without feeling that their musical "betters" are trying to put something over on them. Telling them that a Webern quartet or a Boulez sonata is really tonal seems no more helpful or less prejudicial than telling them that it's awful stuff that they can't possibly understand. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking for a tonal foundation for the dramatic gestures of _Erwartung_ or the sonic kaleidoscope of _Repons_. Those works have their own qualities and can be enjoyed on their own terms, and I see no value in trying to justify them by claiming that atonality doesn't exist, or that everything is tonal (which comes to the same thing), and that, by implication, people just don't know how to listen.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> It doesn't? Ultimately, a person is judged a genius based primarily on accomplishments (whether scientific, mathematical, artistic or somesuch) that require an intellect that relatively few have. Supposedly, most of those on this forum are here because they have more experience, and a greater interest in, listening to classical music than average so the presentation of this work of Mozart is useful evidence as to why we are calling Mozart a genius.
> 
> Does that, in and of itself, prove the point. Not necessarily, but, to say it doesn't get us very far is IMO the other extreme.


"The other extreme" would have been, "This gets us nowhere at all", (or "This takes us backwards"!). Presenting examples of the work and stating that "This is the work of a genius" gets us further than presenting nothing but a restatement of the proposition. But it doesn't clarify what it is about the music that, to use your phrase, required an intellect that relatively few have.

Let's just consider a parallel to the argument that M had an intellect that relatively few before him had. I'm reminded of the fact that before 1954, no one had run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Nowadays, for an athlete to run the mile in such a swift time is quite unremarkable. In other words, it is arguable that there are fields of human endeavour where significant progress in human capabilities is possible. Bannister might have been a physical 'genius' for his time, but he's been overtaken.

Of course I'm not suggesting that there is a direct comparison between running and composing opera, but before Mozart, the musical forms that he worked with were still in development. Instruments and musicians were getting 'better' all the time (unless you're of the opinion that the _capabilities _of the orchestra of the time of Monteverdi have never been equalled) so Mozart could be seen merely as a significant acceleration of what was possible. Since his time, there have arguably been many composers with comparable intellect who _could _have replicated the feats of WAM, but were not going to, because he had already done them (music being completely unlike running, as the aim is not to do exactly the same only faster!)

You're right that there are people here who know so much about music that they don't feel the need to elaborate; they can just sagely nod their heads in wise agreement with each other - and let the uninitiated continue in their ignorance.

But that hardly helps the OP's questions.


----------



## PlaySalieri

There is a point that should be made about intellect - there probably have been composers who had a greater intellect than Mozart - who did not compose great music. There is a factor in addition to intellect that makes a Mozart or a Schubert - and perhaps that factor X or whatever is what baffles us.


----------



## EDaddy

Woodduck said:


> In the Classical symphony the first movement was the locus of a composer's most serious musical thinking, and only gradually did the other movements approach the first in seriousness of intent, complexity of form, and depth of expression. I find this obvious and don't see why pointing it out should bother anyone. How we respond to these works is an individual matter.


While I agree unequivocally with your assertion above regarding Mozart's numbered symphonic output, Woodduck, I'd be shocked if you found it so in other formats like his piano concerti for instance (widely considered a sub-category of the symphonic repertoire, add "lead piano" of course).

Case in point: Piano Concerto #27 In B Flat, K 595 - 2. Larghetto... truly one of the most exquisitely-rendered gems in the history of Larghettos, and a second movement most worthy of the first. Or what of his Serenade in G Major, K. 525 "Eine kleine Nachtmusik"/II. Romance. Andante? A most elegant, stately andante. Or his Piano Concerto #24 In C Minor, K 491 - 3. Allegretto? And perhaps the most obvious: his Piano Concerto #21 In C, K 467, "Elvira Madigan" - 2. Andante, which has to be one of, if not _the_ most elegiac, heaven-touched and idyllic andantes ever written in the history of man and music. Not only did these latter movements "approach the first in seriousness of intent, complexity of form, and depth of expression" but in some cases may have matched or even superseded them.

The majority of these examples are admittedly of the piano concerto family (which I generally consider to be one of Mozart's more profound and emotively expressive musical platforms, more so even than his numbered symphonic works), but they nevertheless are, at least to my "Mozartian sensibilities", examples of post-first movement compositions not only equal to or worthy of their corresponding first counterparts, but perfect movements within themselves. Would you not agree?


----------



## PlaySalieri

EDaddy said:


> While I agree unequivocally with your assertion above regarding Mozart's numbered symphonic output, Woodduck, I'd be shocked if you found it so in other formats like his piano concerti for instance (widely considered a sub-category of the symphonic repertoire, add "lead piano" of course).
> 
> Case in point: Piano Concerto #27 In B Flat, K 595 - 2. Larghetto... truly one of the most exquisitely-rendered gems in the history of Larghettos, and a second movement most worthy of the first. Or what of his Serenade in G Major, K. 525 "Eine kleine Nachtmusik"/II. Romance. Andante? A most elegant, stately andante. Or his Piano Concerto #24 In C Minor, K 491 - 3. Allegretto? And perhaps the most obvious: his Piano Concerto #21 In C, K 467, "Elvira Madigan" - 2. Andante, which has to be one of, if not _the_ most elegiac, heaven-touched and idyllic andantes ever written in the history of man and music. Not only did these latter movements "approach the first in seriousness of intent, complexity of form, and depth of expression" but in some cases may have matched or even superseded them.
> 
> The majority of these examples are admittedly of the piano concerto family (which I generally consider to be one of Mozart's more profound and emotively expressive musical platforms, more so even than his numbered symphonic works), but they nevertheless are, at least to my "Mozartian sensibilities", examples of post-first movement compositions not only equal to or worthy of their corresponding first counterparts, but perfect movements within themselves. Would you not agree?


There are of course many more examples composed much earlier than yours -surely the 2nd mvt of px 9 is profound - so is the middle mvt of k364 - among his other works you will find amazing depth in slow mvts of k334 (divertimento) - the middle movements of the violin concertos etc etc

For symphonies it also strikes me that no 25 in g minor, and no 29 have very well matched movements.


----------



## hpowders

Harold in Columbia said:


> I would say the relevant fact is that, when he reached the age at which Schubert died, Mozart had already written: the _Jeunehomme_ and the Vienna piano concertos up through No. 24 in C minor (and also No. 25, but who cares); the sinfonia concertante for violin and viola; the string quintets in C major and G minor, K. 515 and 516; the Haydn quartets; the unfinished Mass in C minor; the piano sonata in C minor and fantasia in the same key, K. 457 and 475 (I can never keep those catalog numbers straight); the _Prague_ symphony; and _Idomeneo_, _The Abduction from the Seraglio_, *and* _The Marriage of Figaro_ *and* _Don Giovanni_.
> 
> With all the Olympian respect due to Schubert, Mozart wins.
> 
> (And if anything, that comparison is stacked in favor of Schubert, who began writing masterpieces at 17 - "Gretchen am Spinnrade" - while Mozart didn't get started until 21 - the _Jeunehomme_ - so the later composer had a four year head start.)


He wrote music with a facility like the rest of us drink water from a glass.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> Let's just consider a parallel to the argument that M had an intellect that relatively few before him had. I'm reminded of the fact that before 1954, no one had run a mile in less than 4 minutes. Nowadays, for an athlete to run the mile in such a swift time is quite unremarkable. In other words, it is arguable that there are fields of human endeavour where significant progress in human capabilities is possible. Bannister might have been a physical 'genius' for his time, but he's been overtaken.
> 
> Of course I'm not suggesting that there is a direct comparison between running and composing opera, but before Mozart, the musical forms that he worked with were still in development. Instruments and musicians were getting 'better' all the time (unless you're of the opinion that the _capabilities _of the orchestra of the time of Monteverdi have never been equalled) so Mozart could be seen merely as a significant acceleration of what was possible. Since his time, there have arguably been many composers with comparable intellect who _could _have replicated the feats of WAM, but were not going to, because he had already done them (music being completely unlike running, as the aim is not to do exactly the same only faster!)


IMO, improvements in feats of athleticism have nothing to do with this subject and I don't think there are many that would buy the premise that a Mozart arrived on the scene based on 'a significant acceleration of what was possible', such as better instruments & musicians, (after all, there was Bach) or that there were later composers of similar intellect to Mozart who didn't replicate his feats based on someone has been there, done that.


> You're right that there are people here who know so much about music that they don't feel the need to elaborate; they can just sagely nod their heads in wise agreement with each other - and let the uninitiated continue in their ignorance. But that hardly helps the OP's questions.


Rather than making this something to do with elitism, people who to have listened to a lot of classical era concertos & symphonies are more likely to appreciate how advanced the Mozart Concerto #18 Andante was than someone who hasn't. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> It seems that the Schoenberg proponents here will never permit themselves simply to acknowledge how radical the harmonic language of much post-tonal music is, and how talking about it in terms of "tonal grammar and syntax" really misrepresents it and will not make for it whatever case they wish to make. The evolution of tonality from modal monophony through late Romantic chromaticism is not difficult to trace, explain, and, most important, hear for most lovers of classical music.
> 
> If, as the proponents of atonality never tire of telling us, the innovations of earlier music were initially perplexing to some people, the fact is that the uncertainty was short-lived, and for good reason: the once "difficult" music of Beethoven and Wagner, being powerfully and _audibly_ tonal regardless of its complexity, conquered the classical listening world very quickly in historical terms, and piano reductions and, later, gramophone recordings of then-contemporary classical music were found in piano benches and on bookshelves everywhere - even in the homes of our grandparents, who knew little about music but knew a good tune or a beautiful harmony when they heard it, and had at least a sense, having nothing to do with social status, that classical music was something really special whether they "understood" it or not. Wagner and Debussy and Sibelius and Khachaturian were in my non-musician family's piano bench, sixty years ago. Schoenberg was not. Would he be in many of the piano benches of today, if folks like my grandparents and parents even had pianos? How could anyone honestly think so? Or is my postal worker secretly whistling tone rows after all?
> 
> The music commonly called atonal is called that for the very good reason that its elements - its succession of pitches, its vertical harmonies, its fluctuating textures and tensions, and its formal dimensions - are not based on, do not assume or refer to, and are not governed by, a _tonal system_, and are not heard as doing so, regardless of what hints of tonality an ear accustomed to listening for them may project onto the music along the way. It would be nice to see an acknowledgement that it is quite legitimate for listeners to be baffled and displeased by harmonies whose underlying principle of organization their ear cannot detect, regardless of what other devices music might employ to create interest and coherence.
> 
> Perhaps having their perceptions validated by some clarity and honesty about what distinguishes tonal from non-tonal music would allow some listeners to approach the music of Schoenberg and company without feeling that their musical "betters" are trying to put something over on them. Telling them that a Webern quartet or a Boulez sonata is really tonal seems no more helpful or less prejudicial than telling them that it's awful stuff that they can't possibly understand. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking for a tonal foundation for the dramatic gestures of _Erwartung_ or the sonic kaleidoscope of _Repons_. Those works have their own qualities and can be enjoyed on their own terms, and I see no value in trying to justify them by claiming that atonality doesn't exist, or that everything is tonal (which comes to the same thing), and that, by implication, people just don't know how to listen.


You have clarified what are, IMO, the most important points that tend to get lost in what is often nothing more than a lot of wordsmithing when the subject is discussed. I quoted the parts that particularly resonated with me.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> You have taken a very difficult subject and clarified what are, IMO, the most important points that tend to get lost in what is often nothing more than a lot of wordsmithing. I quoted the parts that particularly resonated with me.


He has muddied the waters in repeating utter falsehoods together with absolute nonsense. The argument as a whole begs the question on every single point that is important to it, so that when it is not wrong, it has no logical force.

(The misuse of the word syllogism is also amusing)

In summation, there is no definition of tonality that will cover Josquin, Debussy, and Wagner without also including Schoenberg and Boulez.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> He has muddied the waters in repeating utter falsehoods together with absolute nonsense. The argument as a whole begs the question on every single point that is important to it, so that when it is not wrong, it has no logical force.
> 
> (The misuse of the word syllogism is also amusing)
> 
> In summation, there is no definition of tonality that will cover Josquin, Debussy, and Wagner without also including Schoenberg and Boulez.


Systematic pitch hierarchy with a central tone. Took seven words. Probably doesn't apply, or at least not easily, to all Debussy.

Syllogism was not misused, it was used as a metaphor.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Systematic pitch hierarchy with a central tone. Took seven words. Probably doesn't apply, or at least not easily, to all Debussy.


And it doesn't apply easily to Josquin, either. Hierarchy is a feature of functional tonality, and I still have no clue why Woodduck has picked it up to make up his own definition of the term.



EdwardBast said:


> Syllogism was not misused, it was used as a metaphor.


Yes, and a very poor metaphor. Saying that something is a "longer and more complex syllogism" is silly. Syllogisms are always only three lines long and require only the simplest deductive reasoning. That's why syllogistic logic is taught first before proceeding to more interesting and powerful logical tools.


----------



## DavidA

EDaddy said:


> *While I agree unequivocally with your assertion above regarding Mozart's numbered symphonic output*, Woodduck, I'd be shocked if you found it so in other formats like his piano concerti for instance (widely considered a sub-category of the symphonic repertoire, add "lead piano" of course).
> 
> Case in point: Piano Concerto #27 In B Flat, K 595 - 2. Larghetto... truly one of the most exquisitely-rendered gems in the history of Larghettos, and a second movement most worthy of the first. Or what of his Serenade in G Major, K. 525 "Eine kleine Nachtmusik"/II. Romance. Andante? A most elegant, stately andante. Or his Piano Concerto #24 In C Minor, K 491 - 3. Allegretto? And perhaps the most obvious: his Piano Concerto #21 In C, K 467, "Elvira Madigan" - 2. Andante, which has to be one of, if not _the_ most elegiac, heaven-touched and idyllic andantes ever written in the history of man and music. Not only did these latter movements "approach the first in seriousness of intent, complexity of form, and depth of expression" but in some cases may have matched or even superseded them.
> 
> The majority of these examples are admittedly of the piano concerto family (which I generally consider to be one of Mozart's more profound and emotively expressive musical platforms, more so even than his numbered symphonic works), but they nevertheless are, at least to my "Mozartian sensibilities", examples of post-first movement compositions not only equal to or worthy of their corresponding first counterparts, but perfect movements within themselves. Would you not agree?


Incredible that anyne can think this of the mature symphonies. Take eg the last movement of 41. Incredible musical form. Not there just to make up the numbers.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Mahlerian said:


> He has muddied the waters in repeating utter falsehoods together with absolute nonsense. The argument as a whole begs the question on every single point that is important to it, so that when it is not wrong, it has no logical force.
> 
> (The misuse of the word syllogism is also amusing)
> 
> In summation, there is no definition of tonality that will cover Josquin, Debussy, and Wagner without also including Schoenberg and Boulez.


I don't know Mahlerian, I thought he made some pretty decent points and I don't see that you offer any insight into your summation, just a diametrically opposed view. Surely you have reasons for feeling the way you do, your answer above has no where near the thoughtfulness that Woodduck put into his post.

Quite honestly your answer strikes me as a tad jejune and if I'm being frank, puerile, like tossing back a tantrum... I don't see how this bodes well for your argument. Below I've seen you have answered to his use of the word syllogism but nothing else.. on to nitpicking I suppose. It's a Pity, I've come to expect more from you.


----------



## Mahlerian

Fugue Meister said:


> I don't know Mahlerian, I thought he made some pretty decent points and I don't see that you offer any insight into your summation, just a diametrically opposed view. Surely you have reasons for feeling the way you do, your answer above has no where near the thoughtfulness that Woodduck put into his post.
> 
> Quite honestly your answer strikes me as a tad jejune and if I'm being frank, puerile, like tossing back a tantrum... I don't see how this bodes well for your argument. Below I've seen you have answered to his use of the word syllogism but nothing else.. on to nitpicking I suppose. It's a Pity, I've come to expect more from you.


What you perceive as thoughtfulness is nothing but a verbal smokescreen for his prejudices. If you can present to me an argument taken from his post, I will answer it clearly, without obfuscation and without equivocation.

The problem with responding to his post is that it doesn't present any real argument. As I said before, where it is not false, it lacks any kind of logical force, because its argument has its conclusion in its premises.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> And it doesn't apply easily to Josquin, either. Hierarchy is a feature of functional tonality, and I still have no clue why Woodduck has picked it up to make up his own definition of the term.


It is a feature of modal music from chant forward and the parameters were well defined as early as the middle ages. It readily applies to Josquin, especially Mille Regretz, where it is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not tone deaf.



Mahlerian said:


> Yes, and a very poor metaphor. Saying that something is a "longer and more complex syllogism" is silly. Syllogisms are always only three lines long and require only the simplest deductive reasoning. That's why syllogistic logic is taught first before proceeding to more interesting and powerful logical tools.


I didn't say it was a good metaphor  but focusing on writing style instead of substance does not speak well for the strength of your position. The point I want to endorse from Woodduck's post is that continually insisting that tonal relationships are important to Schoenberg's and Boulez's serial music is the quintessential example of trying to muddy the waters and, in so doing, to destroy any meaningful theoretical and stylistic distinctions. This music deserves to be defended on characteristics it actually possesses rather than by making nonsense of traditional terminology.


----------



## Becca

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, and a very poor metaphor. Saying that something is a "longer and more complex syllogism" is silly. Syllogisms are always only three lines long and require only the simplest deductive reasoning. That's why syllogistic logic is taught first before proceeding to more interesting and powerful logical tools.


That is only one definition of syllogism. It is also defined as "a subtle, specious, or crafty argument" and "deductive reasoning" so it is not helpful to call something silly when you are artificially restricting the definition.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Mahlerian said:


> Ever since Woodduck compared serial composition to genocide, I have refused to answer him.
> 
> He's also compared me to (murderer and racist to many) George Zimmerman...twice!
> 
> What you perceive as thoughtfulness is nothing but a verbal smokescreen for his prejudices. If you can present to me an argument taken from his post, I will answer it clearly, without obfuscation and without equivocation.
> 
> The problem with responding to his post is that it doesn't present any real argument. As I said before, where it is not false, it lacks any kind of logical force, because its argument has its conclusion in its premises.


Fair enough, to keep things as concise as possible perhaps you could explain to me for a start, how your summation of post 201 includes non-tonal (I know how much you despise "atonal") music? I see dodecaphony as it's own method, and not that it's only for scholars but I feel he has a point that:



Woodduck said:


> If, as the proponents of atonality never tire of telling us, the innovations of earlier music were initially perplexing to some people, the fact is that the uncertainty was short-lived, and for good reason: the once "difficult" music of Beethoven and Wagner, being powerfully and audibly tonal regardless of its complexity, conquered the classical listening world very quickly in historical terms, and piano reductions and, later, gramophone recordings of then-contemporary classical music were found in piano benches and on bookshelves everywhere - even in the homes of our grandparents, who knew little about music but knew a good tune or a beautiful harmony when they heard it, and had at least a sense, having nothing to do with social status, that classical music was something really special whether they "understood" it or not. Wagner and Debussy and Sibelius and Khachaturian were in my non-musician family's piano bench, sixty years ago. Schoenberg was not. Would he be in many of the piano benches of today, if folks like my grandparents and parents even had pianos? How could anyone honestly think so? Or is my postal worker secretly whistling tone rows after all?


As I've expressed before, I know many people (novices & laymen) who can put up with most classical music but if a piece of late Schoenberg or some Webern comes on I'm asked to change it or at the very least am asked what the ungodly racket is. This makes me feel that serialist music, the mathematical stochastic processes music, or new complexity music is an incredibly acquired taste and the people who enjoy/champion said music are remanent. So how can you lump it into a definition of tonality that encompasses everything?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Fugue Meister said:


> I know many people (novices & laymen) who can put up with most classical music but if a piece of late Schoenberg or some Webern comes on I'm asked to change it or at the very least am asked what the ungodly racket is.


To be fair, I've had this happen with tonal classical music (Bartok, eg) and tonal pop music as well--quite frequently with the latter as there's plenty of pop music out there intentionally designed to be unpleasant in a sense, like extreme metal--so it's certainly not just atonal and serial classical that can provoke such reactions.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Fugue Meister said:


> remanent


Remanent?

Eh? as in 'remanent magnetism'?


----------



## Mahlerian

Fugue Meister said:


> Fair enough, to keep things as concise as possible perhaps you could explain to me for a start, how your summation of post 201 includes non-tonal (I know how much you despise "atonal") music? I see dodecaphony as it's own method, and not that it's only for scholars but I feel he has a point that:


Of course dodecophony is its own method, but there are no characteristics of it that separate it from all other music. That's my point. There is no harmonic quality common to Josquin, Wagner, and Debussy that is not also present in Schoenberg, especially such traditionally-based pieces as the one SeptimalTritone posted.



Fugue Meister said:


> As I've expressed before, I know many people (novices & laymen) who can put up with most classical music but if a piece of late Schoenberg or some Webern comes on I'm asked to change it or at the very least am asked what the ungodly racket is. This makes me feel that serialist music, the mathematical stochastic processes music, or new complexity music is an incredibly acquired taste and the people who enjoy/champion said music are remanent. So how can you lump it into a definition of tonality that encompasses everything?


Of course. In the broader sense, tonality is any relationship between pitches.

But tonality is not at issue. Do your guests also feel uncomfortable with other post-tonal music such as Stravinsky, Bartok, and Debussy? Would your guests feel much more comfortable with the earlier, common practice Schoenberg of the First Quartet?

As for the bit you quoted, it's factually incorrect that contemporaries who lambasted Beethoven and Wagner considered it obviously tonal, as is the implication that Schoenberg's innovations were not quickly accepted. Early audiences often responded quite well to Schoenberg's works, especially after a bit more exposure.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> It is a feature of modal music from chant forward and the parameters were well defined as early as the middle ages. It readily applies to Josquin, especially Mille Regretz, where it is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not tone deaf.


I hear centricity, I hear cadences, and so forth, but I somehow manage to miss the definition of key areas and the treatment of modulation between them as a matter of hierarchical weight, unless you want to allow a weakened notion of hierarchy, but then I would hear the Schoenberg example as equally or more strongly hierarchical than the Josquin.

Maybe I'm tone deaf.

Or maybe the definitions of hierarchy and function as expounded in any music history text are actually right after all.



EdwardBast said:


> I didn't say it was a good metaphor  but focusing on writing style instead of substance does not speak well for the strength of your position.


Good thing I didn't do that, then. It was just a parenthetical remark.



EdwardBast said:


> The point I want to endorse from Woodduck's post is that continually insisting that tonal relationships are important to Schoenberg's and Boulez's serial music is the quintessential example of trying to muddy the waters and, in so doing, to destroy any meaningful theoretical and stylistic distinctions. This music deserves to be defended on characteristics it actually possesses rather than by making nonsense of traditional terminology.


Hold on, I'll fix that for you.

The point I want to endorse is that continually insisting that tonal relationships are important to *pre-tonal and folk music* is the quintessential example of trying to muddy the waters and, in so doing, to destroy any meaningful theoretical and stylistic distinctions. This music deserves to be defended on characteristics it actually possesses rather than by making nonsense of traditional terminology.


----------



## ArtMusic

Woodduck said:


> ... It would be nice to see an acknowledgement that it is quite legitimate for listeners to be baffled and displeased by harmonies whose underlying principle of organization their ear cannot detect, regardless of what other devices music might employ to create interest and coherence. ...


A very good point, which I have always maintained that atonal music makes compelling study on score more so than listening to appreciate the intricate designs. Mozart's "Dissonance" string quartet (19) touches on this in an interesting way for an 18th century work but largely reverts back to traditional forms with originality throughout.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I hear centricity, I hear cadences, and so forth, but I somehow manage to miss the definition of key areas and the treatment of modulation between them as a matter of hierarchical weight, unless you want to allow a weakened notion of hierarchy, but then I would hear the Schoenberg example as equally or more strongly hierarchical than the Josquin.


Nice attempt at obfuscation, but you know perfectly well that I said "pitch hierarchy," not "tonal hierarchy." The latter term is best left for the discussion of common-practice tonal music. "Pitch hierarchy," is a more general term uniting common-practice music, modal medieval music, folk music, rock, jazz, Indian classical music, etc. Each of these styles has its own conventions for hierarchical relationships among tones, and they are usually more or less systematic within styles. The Josquin example, Mille regretz, demonstrates very clear pitch hierarchy. Every cadence is readily audible. The overall mode is Phrygian, at least nominally, since it opens and closes on E and has some internal stops on E. The next most important pitch in the hierarchy is A, upon which most of the internal cadences converge. (It's been a while since I did anything extensive with modal theory, but I'm pretty sure this is a commonly stressed pitch and cadence point for internal phrases in Phrygian and Hypophrygian chants, as well as later music in Phrygian mode.)



Mahlerian said:


> Maybe I'm tone deaf.


No, you most assuredly are not. Your fault is not in your ears, but in your concepts.



Mahlerian said:


> Hold on, I'll fix that for you.
> 
> The point I want to endorse is that continually insisting that tonal relationships are important to *pre-tonal and folk music* is the quintessential example of trying to muddy the waters and, in so doing, to destroy any meaningful theoretical and stylistic distinctions. This music deserves to be defended on characteristics it actually possesses rather than by making nonsense of traditional terminology.


This has already been covered above. But: Once again, you know perfectly well that Woodduck is using tonal in a broader sense equivalent to my "music characterized by pitch hierarchy." Admittedly, it would be better to avoid the term tonal in this context, but you can't pretend, as you are now, that you don't know what he means.

If you want to assert that pitch relations in Schoenberg's non-tonal music are hierarchical, it might be a good idea to demonstrate how this is true in some systematic way. For all of the other styles mentioned above, hierarchical systems have been extensively explored and there is reasonable consensus on how they work.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Nice attempt at obfuscation, but you know perfectly well that I said "pitch hierarchy," not "tonal hierarchy."


I'm not attempting to obfuscate anything.



EdwardBast said:


> The latter is best left for the discussion of common-practice tonal music. "Pitch hierarchy," is a more general term uniting common-practice music, modal medieval music, folk music, rock, jazz, Indian classical music, etc. Each of these styles has its own conventions for hierarchical relationships among tones, and they are usually more or less systematic within styles. The Josquin example, Mille regretz, demonstrates very clear pitch hierarchy. Every cadence is readily audible. The overall mode is Phrygian, at least nominally, since it opens and closes on E and has some internal stops on E. The next most important pitch in the hierarchy is A, upon which most of the internal cadences converge. (Its been a while since I did anything extensive with modal theory, but I'm pretty sure this is a commonly stressed pitch for internal phrases in Phrygian and Hypophrygian chants, as well as later music in Phrygian mode as well.)


Okay, but what about the clear pitch hierarchy in the Schoenberg piece linked to? The most important tone is D-flat, and there are plenty of clear cadences on a mixed thirds chord of that root.

My point is that you're arguing against a hypothetical and non-existent music in which every pitch receives equal stress.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Ever since Woodduck compared serial composition to genocide, I have refused to answer him.
> 
> He's also compared me to (murderer and racist to many) George Zimmerman...twice!


I had no intention of responding to any of your reactions to my post, but these statements necessitate it.

I wrote a post speaking of the concept of _"total serialism"_ - the subjection of _all_ elements of music, not only its pitches, to serialist methods - as totalitarian in spirit. I did not mean by that, and did not say, anything _remotely_ implying genocide (and in fact the concepts have no inherent relation to one another). That notion of "genocide" was attributed to me by some benighted individual who obviously could only think of the word "totalitarian" in a narrow political context, as he conceived of that, and couldn't (or wouldn't) comprehend the broad sense in which I used the term. When that person made that absurd attribution I attempted to clarify:

*Let me put it another way. I find the idea of total serialism in music as gruesome in the context of aesthetics as the idea of totalitarianism in the context of politics.

That does not posit an "equivalence" between aesthetics and politics, or between an artistic horror and a human one.

Nor is the concept of "totalitarianism" equivalent to the concept of genocide and mass murder. Those things may also be found outside that particular political structure.

I'm not the one making false equivalences here. *

That same person not only identified my use of the word totalitarian with Nazi genocide by posting photos of corpses piled up at death camps, but removed the term "total" from my "total serialism," whereupon other dittoheads chimed in with the "serialism = genocide" refrain, and nothing I said after that to clarify or expand on my intended meaning made the slightest dent. Alas, I see today that The Dreadful Thing Woodduck [Never] Said is still alive and kicking.

Welcome to life at TalkClassical.

As for your second accusation, I doubt that I could have compared you to a George Zimmerman, because the only George Zimmerman I can recall is that vigilante who shot an unarmed black kid back in whatever year it was. That makes so little sense in this context that I'm completely at a loss as to what such a comparison could possibly mean.


----------



## Mahlerian

Here are your words.



Woodduck said:


> The political totalitarians delivered humanity into horrors of mass oppression on a scale never before seen. The musical totalitarians piled up not bodies but staff paper, filled with dense, calculated, arid, and essentially identical concatenations of notes which only a handful of people can make sense of intellectually and which only a handful have any interest in listening to - mostly, I would venture, the same handful. That handful are certainly disproportionately represented on forums such as this.





Woodduck said:


> Say something stupid about a composer - any composer, pick one - and the Schoenberg Neighborhood Watch comes running out looking for someone with a hoodie to gun down.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> See signature.


The statement you quote does not _equate_ one thing with another. It bears out the explanation I gave above: "I find the idea of total serialism in music as gruesome *in the context of aesthetics* as the idea of totalitarianism *in the context of politics."* The contexts, of course, are _completely_ different, and so the moral implications are completely different.

I'm sorry if my metaphors are too vivid for you, or my distinctions - crucial distinctions - too subtle.


----------



## Mahlerian

And I didn't say you *equated* anything. I said you made the comparison, and you said



Woodduck said:


> I did not mean by that, and did not say, anything remotely implying genocide


Which, of course, you did.


----------



## Woodduck

I have carefully explained that I have _never_ implied genocide, and have tried to clarify my actual meaning. If you don't see it, and go on misinterpreting me despite my repeated attempts at explanation...


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> I have carefully explained that I have _never_ implied genocide, and have tried to clarify my actual meaning. If you don't see it, and go on misinterpreting me despite my repeated attempts at explanation...


What kind of bodies are you talking about, then?

What kind of bodies did the totalitarians deliver the world in their mass horrors that are comparable to the sheet music piled up by the total serialist composers, whom you abhor?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mahlerian said:


> What kind of bodies did the totalitarians deliver the world in their mass horrors that are comparable to the sheet music piled up by the total serialist composers, whom you abhor?


I don't know the full context, but based on what I've read here, I'm siding with Woodduck. Fristly, metaphors have limits to their intentions, the "ground" in which the vehicle (new thing) infers meaning onto the tenor (original thing). Sometimes these limits are clear, and sometimes they are not, but in this case it's quite clear the "ground" was not meant to extend to the horrors that various totalitarian regimes committed. Secondly, there's a difference between totalitarian _as a concept_, and what various totalitarians did. Considering the original comparison didn't mention any specific totalitarians, it seems that bringing up the horrors that some committed is rather ridiculous.

If you were analyzing the original statement in a poetry class, you'd write it out as:

Tenor = total serialism
Vehicle = totalitarian
Ground = A philosophy that exercises complete control over something (people VS composition process) (perceived negatively)

If you actually tried to extend the ground to what you did, you'd fail the class.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> What kind of bodies are you talking about, then?
> 
> What kind of bodies did the totalitarians deliver the world in their mass horrors that are comparable to the sheet music piled up by the total serialist composers, whom you abhor?


It's clear that nothing I could say could disabuse you of your assumptions. You may read into my words anything you like. I honestly don't care.

What I do care about is your publishing on this forum a misleading, contextless statement such as _"Woodduck compared serial composition to genocide,"_ knowing full well that it can only suggest something horrible.


----------



## Mahlerian

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know the full context, but based on what I've read here, I'm siding with Woodduck. Fristly, metaphors have limits to their intentions, the "ground" in which the vehicle (new thing) infers meaning onto the tenor (original thing). Sometimes these limits are clear, and sometimes they are not, but in this case it's quite clear the "ground" was not meant to extend to the horrors that various totalitarian regimes committed. Secondly, there's a difference between totalitarian _as a concept_, and what various totalitarians did. Considering the original comparison didn't mention any specific totalitarians, it seems that bringing up the horrors that some committed is rather ridiculous.
> 
> If you were analyzing the original statement in a poetry class, you'd write it out as:
> 
> Tenor = total serialism
> Vehicle = totalitarian
> Ground = A philosophy that exercises complete control over something (people VS composition process) (perceived negatively)
> 
> If you actually tried to extend the ground to what you did, you'd fail the class.


The horrors were in the original quote, and it is clear that a comparison is meant between the murders committed by totalitarian regimes and the compositional methods of a few who were, to a person, persecuted by those regimes.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Mahlerian said:


> The horrors were in the original quote, and it is clear that a comparison is meant between the murders committed by totalitarian regimes and the compositional methods of a few who were, to a person, persecuted by those regimes.


So do you have a link to the original quote?


----------



## Mahlerian

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So do you have a link to the original quote?


It's in my signature, but okay, here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/38920-serialism-move-forward-backward-post915108.html#post915108


----------



## mmsbls

The thread has been temporarily closed. Negative personal comments were removed from various posts.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread's open again. Let's discuss the genius of Mozart.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Such genius...


----------



## PlaySalieri

mmsbls said:


> The thread's open again. Let's discuss the genius of Mozart.


That would be nice - but this thread seems to have been hijacked by a small group of well read musical historians intent on discussing tonality etc. Goodness knows how they relate those discussions to the OP questions.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> Yes Mozart's symphonies - the last great 3 plus the Prague - are the equal of any symphony composed.


In your opinion. An opinion shared by many, I am sure, but still just an opinion, not supported by 'fact' and not much of a contribution to the question of whether M was a genius. However, it does underline one reason why the label is used, which is that he wrote some very fine music, appreciated by many for a long time. I don't see that giving consideration of other composers works is necessary to establishing whether M was a genius. In my opinion, LvB wrote more symphonies that I am happier to return to for multiple listenings than did Mozart. But if we must use such terms as 'genius', I'm sure room can be made for both.

And probably for Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky...etc etc


----------



## ArtMusic

The last three symphonies are testament to Mozart's creative genius, from the early Romantic moods of no.40 to the epic fugal ending of Jupiter. If this is not the proof of Mozart's creative genius, then frankly there is no standard to benchmark to.


----------



## Guest

> Origin
> Late Middle English: from Latin, 'attendant spirit present from one's birth, innate ability or inclination', from the root of _gignere_ 'beget'. The original sense 'spirit attendant on a person' gave rise to a sense 'a person's characteristic disposition' (late 16th century), which led to a sense 'a person's natural ability', and finally 'exceptional natural ability' (mid 17th century).


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/genius

If one is to accept the idea that M was a genius, it's insufficient to simply point to a work and say, "There...see...a work of genius!" Nor to add, "See...look, look, there's more of them, so many that he must be a genius."

What, more precisely, are the characteristics of the work of a genius? Or would it be truer to say, what are the characteristics of a genius?


----------



## EDaddy

stomanek said:


> That would be nice - but this thread seems to have been hijacked by a small group of well read musical historians intent on discussing tonality etc. Goodness knows how they relate those discussions to the OP questions.


It appears (from someone observing from the side lines) that this is an argument that suffers from the simple fact that those on each side of the debate can't even agree upon a defined set of terms. Unless or until that occurs, I fear this is a dog that will forever be doomed to chase its own tail.

But back to "the genius of Mozart"!!

Maybe we should start (or continue) by defining our terms. As per Merriam Webster:

*Simple Definition of genius* (i.e. the definition that gets tossed around like a Frisbee):

_: a very smart or talented person : a person who has a level of talent or intelligence that is very rare or remarkable
: a person who is very good at doing something
: great natural ability : remarkable talent or intelligence_

*Full Definition of genius*:

_plural ge·nius·es or ge·nii play \-nē-ˌī\
1
a plural genii : an attendant spirit of a person or place
b plural usually genii : a person who influences another for good or bad
2
: a strong leaning or inclination : penchant
3
a : a peculiar, distinctive, or identifying character or spirit
b : the associations and traditions of a place
c : a personification or embodiment especially of a quality or condition
4
plural usually genii : spirit, jinni
5
plural usually geniuses
a : a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude <had a genius for getting along with boys - Mary Ross>
b : extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity
c : a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority; especially : a person with a very high IQ_

So... it immediately becomes apparent that there is quite a bit of wiggle room with regard to what it means to be a "genius". Did Mozart have a very high IQ? Well... considering that the very concept of IQ wasn't coined until 1912 by some merry chap named William Stern, I doubt we'll ever really know with regard to anyone pre-nineteenth century, that is, if IQ is to be a determining factor.

I, for one, find genius to be an exhaustively overly-used accolade these days. IQ notwithstanding, I personally reserve genius for all but a very few; those who stand out above the standouts. And my criteria may differ for different genres or disciplines. For example, in the realm of physics, math and such, Albert Einstein stands as a pretty universally agreed-upon choice. He certainly gets my vote, much as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, among several (in fact many) others get my vote as well, at least within the so-called Classical idiom. Why so many others you might ask? Because, at least in my opinion, Classical Music as a broad musical discipline or art, does not treat kindly those who are plagued by mediocrity. You almost_ have to be_ a standout to even compete; one has to be at least _somewhat _of a genius to even be taken seriously. There really isn't much, if any, room for mediocrity within the discipline of Classical Music. The same might go for physics and certain other disciplines or art forms.

But now take Pop music for example and, perhaps, a Paul McCartney or a Jimi Hendrix might be thought of as deserving the genius delineation. Are they the kind of genius that the Mozarts or Mendelssohns were within the context of their respective art forms? I would argue no. But does that make them stand out any less or be any less-deserving of such accolades within their respective genre(s)? I would argue no.

Any takers? Naysayers?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

EDaddy said:


> Maybe we should start (or continue) by defining our terms. As per Merriam Webster:
> 
> *Simple Definition of genius* (i.e. the definition that gets tossed around like a Frisbee):
> 
> _: a very smart or talented person : a person who has a level of talent or intelligence that is very rare or remarkable
> : a person who is very good at doing something
> : great natural ability : remarkable talent or intelligence_


Of course, all definitions have weaknesses - we are trying to capture complex concepts in a brief and succinct form of words (and words themselves have imprecise and complex meanings) but I feel that this is far too loose a definition - "a person who is very good at doing something" is not necessarily a genius. My plumber is very good at fixing pipes and putting in radiators, but no way is he a genius at plumbing

For me, a genuis is going much further than this - towards outstanding levels of performance at a truly creative level.


----------



## EdwardBast

To me, trying to define or prove Mozart's genius is inherently uninteresting. I take it as self-evident that he was a genius of the first order. He brought all of the forms in which he worked to the height of perfection _the limitations of the style allowed_, and he often defied and exceeded those limitations. My interest is more in examining individual works closely to see how they work.


----------



## arpeggio

Of course Mozart was a genius. So what? He was a genius at manipulating the tools he was working with. Mozart and Haydn were definitely the greatest composers of their generation. That is what I was taught in music history class.

For me this is an issue concerning programming. Since Mozart was a genius does that mean that we should not program the music of Stamitz, Salieri and other contemporaries who maybe were not geniuses?

I have recently discovered a Baroque composer who is quite good: Thomas Augustine Arne. I have been listening to his Overtures and was so impressed that I secured a copy of some of his other works.

I do not think that the likes of Stamitz, Arne, Raff and many others should wallow in obscurity along with Webern.

One does not have to be a genius to compose great music.


----------



## Strange Magic

arpeggio said:


> For me this is an issue concerning programming. Since Mozart was a genius does that mean that we should not program the music of Stamitz, Salieri and other contemporaries who maybe were not geniuses?
> 
> I do not think that the likes of Stamitz, Arne, Raff and many others should wallow in obscurity along with Webern.
> 
> One does not have to be a genius to compose great music.


For some reason, this reminded me of Andy Warhol's remark that in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.

From another perspective, the classical-only music FM stations around my neck of the woods program all sorts of relatively obscure composers; one reason being the insatiable need for content with which to fill air time.


----------



## PlaySalieri

We've come a long way - and at the same time travelled nowhere at all.
The OP wanted to know why the term genius is particularly applied to Mozart more readily than any other composer.
We might also ask why we pin this tag more readily on Shakespeare than any other playwrite.
Is is perhaps the general perception that Mozart fits cultural prototypes for what a genius actually is - and he happens to fit it better than say Beethoven, Bach and others who certainly were geniuses.
Perhaps the defining prototype characteristic is his prodigious childhood talent and achievements - and the perception/belief that he was born with this ability - his mature masterpieces merely proof of this "divine" gift. And the latter really sets him apart from other minor or unknown musical figures who were also talented as young musicians - or those great composers who were merely impressive as children and became great.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> In your opinion. An opinion shared by many, I am sure, but still just an opinion, not supported by 'fact' and not much of a contribution to the question of whether M was a genius. However, it does underline one reason why the label is used, which is that he wrote some very fine music, appreciated by many for a long time. I don't see that giving consideration of other composers works is necessary to establishing whether M was a genius. In my opinion, LvB wrote more symphonies that I am happier to return to for multiple listenings than did Mozart.* But if we must use such terms as 'genius', I'm sure room can be made for both.*
> 
> And probably for Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky...etc etc


Then you should go and stand with a banner outside the Royal College of Music and demand that Beethoven's name is to be connected with the term genius at least as many times as Mozart because you find yourself returning more to Beethoven's symphonies more than Mozart's. I have a well used old bedsheet if you need something to daub your slogan on.


----------



## Becca

...or perhaps that he died relatively young leaving us all wondering what direction he would have taken. He really shouldn't have eaten that under-cooked pork cutlet!


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> We've come a long way - and at the same time travelled nowhere at all.
> The OP wanted to know why the term genius is particularly applied to Mozart more readily than any other composer.
> We might also ask why we pin this tag more readily on Shakespeare than any other playwrite.
> Is is perhaps the general perception that Mozart fits cultural prototypes for what a genius actually is - and he happens to fit it better than say Beethoven, Bach and others who certainly were geniuses.
> Perhaps the defining prototype characteristic is his prodigious childhood talent and achievements - and the perception/belief that he was born with this ability - his mature masterpieces merely proof of this "divine" gift. And the latter really sets him apart from other minor or unknown musical figures who were also talented as young musicians - or those great composers who were merely impressive as children and became great.


No, it is not the general perception that Mozart fits "cultural prototypes" better than Beethoven or Bach. Yes, people are always impressed with prodigies, especially those who crave external confirmation of their opinions because they are not confident enough in their aesthetic judgment alone. Being a prodigy is of no significance in defining genius. It impresses a lot of people who don't know what is important, as does mythology, like the fiction that Mozart did not sketch and rework his music. The fact that we got to all of the obvious reasons in the first couple of pages probably explains the lack of recent progress.


----------



## jdec

ArtMusic said:


> The last three symphonies are testament to Mozart's creative genius, from the early Romantic moods of no.40 to the epic fugal ending of Jupiter. If this is not the proof of Mozart's creative genius, then frankly there is no standard to benchmark to.


Amazing that he composed those 3 symphonies in a miraculous blaze in just 6 weeks, isn't it?


----------



## poconoron

One genius fascinated by the genius of Mozart:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/science/31essa.html?_r=0


----------



## EdwardBast

Mythology is a big factor: There is the myth that Mozart generally wrote things in his head and only wrote them down at the last minute. Evidence suggests he relied on having a keyboard at hand when composing. The last minute business is based on people misreading his correspondence and not understanding his working methods. He would often complete a draft score of a composition, leaving what he considered to be obvious details, like writing internal parts, to a final stage. Creating the final score and parts at the last minute from such a sketch is not some kind of miracle. It is the sign of a procrastinator. Once one prunes away the mythology, perpetuated in popular sources like Amadeus, one finds that Mozart put on his musical pants like everyone else.


----------



## Blancrocher

jdec said:


> Amazing that he composed those 3 symphonies in a miraculous blaze in just 6 weeks, isn't it?


I have no problem acknowledging that Mozart was a genius, but even I find that rather excessive.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

poconoron said:


> One genius fascinated by the genius of Mozart:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/science/31essa.html?_r=0


Regarding this:


> Though a Classical giant, Mozart helped lay groundwork for the Romantic with its less precise structures. Similarly, Einstein's theories of relativity completed the era of classical physics and paved the way for atomic physics and its ambiguities. Like Mozart's music, Einstein's work is a turning point.


I think that's a somewhat labored analogy on both fronts. On the musical, each era had its precise and imprecise structures, often growing out of a discontent with the previous era's structures. It's hard to claim, eg, that any of the classical forms Mozart used was more or less structured than Bach's, late Beethoven's, Wagner's, or Brahms. They are all very different structures, often more or less rigid and rigorous depending on the specific work and when it was composed. In physics, quantum mechanics is as precise and structured as Relativity; more so given that its predictions are more accurate. It's also entirely possible to not see a discrete split between them, but rather a continuation in which Relativity only explains it up to a point. The equations that model quantum mechanics, though, are every bit as simple and beautiful as those of Relativity (and the "ambiguity" is overstated; it disappears under interpretations that don't fight against what the math says).


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> No, it is not the general perception that Mozart fits "cultural prototypes" better than Beethoven or Bach. Yes, people are always impressed with prodigies, especially those who crave external confirmation of their opinions because they are not confident enough in their aesthetic judgment alone. Being a prodigy is of no significance in defining genius. It impresses a lot of people who don't know what is important, as does mythology, like the fiction that Mozart did not sketch and rework his music. The fact that we got to all of the obvious reasons in the first couple of pages probably explains the lack of recent progress.


Does it not take "genius" to be as masterfully proficient in virtually all musical genres as he was - and all _by the age of 35_? Can you name just one other composer who mastered it all at the very highest level _by age 35_?

Do you not put enormous weight on the opinions of musical composers, musicians and musicologists who are nearly unanimous, it seems to me, in proclaiming his musical genius?

Or do you know something that the rest of us are missing somehow?


----------



## Dim7

Compared to Mozart, all other composers seem utterly incompetent as melodists to me.


----------



## ArtMusic

The boy Mozart wrote music as an infant, and that consistency became his career. I would call that genius as do many scholars on the biography and musicology of Wolfgang. I would also add he had great nurturing by his only teacher he knew, Leopold.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Dim7 said:


> Compared to Mozart, all other composers seem utterly incompetent as melodists to me.


That's similar to how I feel about Mahler, except not _nearly_ as exaggerated.

Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, etc. _still_ seem quite competent in the melody department (more than competent, but you get my point).


----------



## DavidA

Dim7 said:


> Compared to Mozart, all other composers seem utterly incompetent as melodists to me.


That to me is far too strong a statement. Mozart was perhaps the greatest melodist but his gifting does not make composers like Schubert, Mendelssohn et al incompetent. Just think of the final movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony. Is this incompetence? No, Mozart's genius might surpass others but does not eclipse them.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> No, it is not the general perception that Mozart fits "cultural prototypes" better than Beethoven or Bach. Yes, people are always impressed with prodigies, especially those who crave external confirmation of their opinions because they are not confident enough in their aesthetic judgment alone. Being a prodigy is of no significance in defining genius. It impresses a lot of people who don't know what is important, as does mythology, like the fiction that Mozart did not sketch and rework his music. The fact that we got to all of the obvious reasons in the first couple of pages probably explains the lack of recent progress.


Why all this banging on about Mozart being a prodigy? There have been other prodigies like Mendelssohn and Saint-Saens who have shown just as much promise in their early years. However, Mozart is remarkable for the way his genius developed and continually produced greater and greater masterpieces.


----------



## EdwardBast

poconoron said:


> Does it not take "genius" to be as masterfully proficient in virtually all musical genres as he was - and all _by the age of 35_? Can you name just one other composer who mastered it all at the very highest level _by age 35_?
> 
> Do you not put enormous weight on the opinions of musical composers, musicians and musicologists who are nearly unanimous, it seems to me, in proclaiming his musical genius?
> 
> Or do you know something that the rest of us are missing somehow?


I was answering the OP:

But why are these labels, specifically "genius," so readily applied to Mozart, specifically considering the depth of music created before and after him?

The answer is because a great many people bought into mistaken myths about Mozart's abilities and working methods. It is commonly repeated that he wrote his complex music in his head, that he didn't need to sketch and do extensive reworking and revision, and that he composed major works at the last minute. All of these commonly accepted factoids are wrong. He wrote at the keyboard, he sketched and reworked material extensively, and those great last minute feats were quite likely just expanding a sketch score into a working one. In short: A likely reason Mozart's name is more often associated with the word genius than that of other genius composers is because more BS about him was fabricated and believed by the credulous than in the case of Beethoven, Bach, and so on. If the rest of you are not aware that most of the signs of genius popularized by Pushkin and whoever ripped off his play to create the screenplay for Amadeus are exaggerated and or made up, then I guess I might know something you are missing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Mythology is a big factor: There is the myth that Mozart generally wrote things in his head and only wrote them down at the last minute. Evidence suggests he relied on having a keyboard at hand when composing. The last minute business is based on people misreading his correspondence and not understanding his working methods. He would often complete a draft score of a composition, leaving what he considered to be obvious details, like writing internal parts, to a final stage. Creating the final score and parts at the last minute from such a sketch is not some kind of miracle. It is the sign of a procrastinator. Once one prunes away the mythology, perpetuated in popular sources like Amadeus, one finds that Mozart put on his musical pants like everyone else.


Not quite. There are myths of course - but there is also evidence of an incredible ability to create masterworks in a short space of time. I understand that the entire score of Figaro was composed in 6 weeks - by any standards that is bordering on unbelievable. He also reputedly was able to compose an overture in one evening.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I was answering the OP:
> 
> But why are these labels, specifically "genius," so readily applied to Mozart, specifically considering the depth of music created before and after him?
> 
> The answer is because a great many people bought into mistaken myths about Mozart's abilities and working methods. It is commonly repeated that he wrote his complex music in his head, that he didn't need to sketch and do extensive reworking and revision, and that he composed major works at the last minute. All of these commonly accepted factoids are wrong. He wrote at the keyboard, he sketched and reworked material extensively, and those great last minute feats were quite likely just expanding a sketch score into a working one. In short: A likely reason Mozart's name is more often associated with the word genius than that of other genius composers is because more BS about him was fabricated and believed by the credulous than in the case of Beethoven, Bach, and so on. If the rest of you are not aware that most of the signs of genius popularized by Pushkin and whoever ripped off his play to create the screenplay for Amadeus are exaggerated and or made up, then I guess I might know something you are missing.


This is mostly speculation - your hypothesis - and you have offered no evidence to back it up. Here on TC none of us have cited these reasons - those of us who support the idea that M is not only a G but the greatest of them all - have cited the quality of his compositions.


----------



## Kieran

EdwardBast said:


> Mythology is a big factor: There is the myth that Mozart generally wrote things in his head and only wrote them down at the last minute. Evidence suggests he relied on having a keyboard at hand when composing. The last minute business is based on people misreading his correspondence and not understanding his working methods. He would often complete a draft score of a composition, leaving what he considered to be obvious details, like writing internal parts, to a final stage. Creating the final score and parts at the last minute from such a sketch is not some kind of miracle. It is the sign of a procrastinator. Once one prunes away the mythology, perpetuated in popular sources like Amadeus, one finds that Mozart put on his musical pants like everyone else.


There's great truth in this, but I think you're being a bit wild in saying he might have been a procrastinator. Remember that a lot of his commissions were rush jobs, and display no sign of uncertainty. If he left his piano part for a violin sonata unwritten on the page, as he did with K279 (I think), it would only be because he knew what he was going to play. This isn't procrastination, it's most likely an economic use of his time. Likewise stuff like overtures for operas, which he usually dashed off at the end. this was because the singers needed their parts first and he could run through the overture quite handily with the orchestra a day or so before the first performance.

He did have an extraordinary memory, however, and he was capable of remembering complex pieces of music remarkably clearly, but in general he worked hard at composition, which in itself isn't always appreciated, and yes, films like Amadeus (much as I love it) have perpetuated some fanciful myths...


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Why all this banging on about Mozart being a prodigy? There have been other prodigies like Mendelssohn and Saint-Saens who have shown just as much promise in their early years. However, Mozart is remarkable for the way his genius developed and continually produced greater and greater masterpieces.


Mendelsohn's teen compositions are probably better than a lot of Mozart's - but his talent did not develop in the same spectacular way that wolfie's did - his VC is indeed one of the greatest in the repertoire - a work of genius - the rest of his output though mostly pretty good - is not as impressive. same with korngold - another child genius whose composing career as an adult just did not flower as one might have expected.


----------



## Dim7

After the brief "Wow" moment ("He composed his first opera in the womb! Holy ****"), prodigyness just isn't all that interesting really. All that matters is what the prodigy composes, and more likely what he will compose as an adult.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> I was answering the OP:
> 
> But why are these labels, specifically "genius," so readily applied to Mozart, specifically considering the depth of music created before and after him?
> 
> The answer is because* a great many people bought into mistaken myths about Mozart's abilities and working methods.* It is commonly repeated that he wrote his complex music in his head, that he didn't need to sketch and do extensive reworking and revision, and that he composed major works at the last minute. All of these commonly accepted factoids are wrong. He wrote at the keyboard, he sketched and reworked material extensively, and those great last minute feats were quite likely just expanding a sketch score into a working one. In short: A likely reason Mozart's name is more often associated with the word genius than that of other genius composers is because more BS about him was fabricated and believed by the credulous than in the case of Beethoven, Bach, and so on. If the rest of you are not aware that most of the signs of genius popularized by Pushkin and whoever ripped off his play to create *the screenplay for Amadeus* are exaggerated and or made up, then I guess I might know something you are missing.


Because people brought mistaken myths about Mozart and because the screenplay of Amadeus is unhistorical does not mean to say he wasn't a stupendous genius. Don't look at the myths - just listen to the music! That to me is obvious!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dim7 said:


> After the brief "Wow" moment ("He composed his first opera in the womb! Holy ****"), prodigyness just isn't all that interesting really. All that matters is what the prodigy composes, and more likely what he will compose as an adult.


Andre Previn once remarked that as a child composer M had a long way to go - and as an adult he went that long way!


----------



## EdwardBast

Kieran said:


> There's great truth in this, but I think you're being a bit wild in saying he might have been a procrastinator. Remember that a lot of his commissions were rush jobs, and display no sign of uncertainty. If he left his piano part for a violin sonata unwritten on the page, as he did with K279 (I think), it would only be because he knew what he was going to play. This isn't procrastination, it's most likely an economic use of his time. Likewise stuff like overtures for operas, which he usually dashed off at the end. this was because the singers needed their parts first and he could run through the overture quite handily with the orchestra a day or so before the first performance.
> 
> He did have an extraordinary memory, however, and he was capable of remembering complex pieces of music remarkably clearly, but in general he worked hard at composition, which in itself isn't always appreciated, and yes, films like Amadeus (much as I love it) have perpetuated some fanciful myths...


Yes, the procrastinator comment was uncalled for!  Obviously, Mozart was insanely industrious and disciplined. But copying the orchestral parts for the overture last is just being pragmatic, as you point out. Are you assuming that he was actually composing the overture at the last minute? More likely, he had the whole opera in draft score and just left the copying of the orchestra parts for the overture till the last minute. That would accord with his working methods as known by historians.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Because people brought mistaken myths about Mozart and because the screenplay of Amadeus is unhistorical does not mean to say he wasn't a stupendous genius. Don't look at the myths - just listen to the music! That to me is obvious!


You are missing the point, even though I copied the critical phrase of the OP right there in red letters. I have acknowledged that WAM was a genius of the first order. What I am answering is why a disproportionate number of people pick his genius to talk about rather than that of other geniuses. One could verify whether or not I am right about the influence of myth by reading all of those references to Mozart's genius and seeing how many of them are linked to mistaken factoids about his working methods and the other BS I have pointed out. I have no interest in doing this, but I suspect one would find lots of the usual nonsense if anyone thought it worth the trouble.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, the procrastinator comment was uncalled for!  Obviously, Mozart was insanely industrious and disciplined. But copying the orchestral parts for the overture last is just being pragmatic, as you point out. Are you assuming that he was actually composing the overture at the last minute? More likely, he had the whole opera in draft score and just left the copying of the orchestra parts for the overture till the last minute.


He used music from don giovanni to compose the overture - but the figaro overture has nothing musically in common with the opera - and I am fairly sure it was conceived and composed full score in less than a day.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> You are missing the point, even though I copied the critical phrase of the OP right there in red letters. I have acknowledged that WAM was a genius of the first order. *What I am answering is why a disproportionate number of people pick his genius to talk about rather than that of other geniuses. *One could verify whether or not I am right about the influence of myth by reading all of those references to Mozart's genius and seeing how many of them are linked to mistaken factoids about his working methods and the other BS I have pointed out. I have no interest in doing this, but I suspect one would find lots of the usual nonsense if anyone thought it worth the trouble.


Very easy to answer. Because his genius was of the highest level. Why do so many muscians - like Berstein and Prevn - exalt Mzart's genius? Because they have watched Amadeus or heard the myths? Of course not! It's because of their regard for his music!


----------



## Becca

stomanek said:


> Not quite. There are myths of course - but there is also evidence of an incredible ability to create masterworks in a short space of time. I understand that the entire score of Figaro was composed in 6 weeks - by any standards that is bordering on unbelievable. He also reputedly was able to compose an overture in one evening.


_[Donizetti] had an even more fatal facility than Rossini, and could turn out three or four operas a year. There are many stories of the rapidity of his composition. Sir Charles Halle, who met him in Paris in 1840, and has left a description of him as "a most distinguished, amiable, and fashionable gentleman, as elegant as his music," tells how he asked him one day if Rossini really composed "The Barber" in a fortnight. "Oh, I quite believe it," said Donizetti; "he has always been such a lazy fellow." _


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> He used music from don giovanni to compose the overture - but the figaro overture has nothing musically in common with the opera - and I am fairly sure it was conceived and composed full score in less than a day.


Why do you think this?


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> What I am answering is why a disproportionate number of people pick his genius to talk about rather than that of other geniuses.


The most tremendous *genius* raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. 
- (Richard Wagner)


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Very easy to answer. Because his genius was of the highest level. Why do so many muscians - like Berstein and Prevn - exalt Mzart's genius? Because they have watched Amadeus or heard the myths? Of course not! It's because of their regard for his music!


Read the OP. The statistics were culled not just from the writing of prominent musicians, but from everyone and there mom in print. Of course smart people know that WAM was a genius and why. It's the hundreds of others I am wondering about.


----------



## KenOC

Another "fast" composer was Shostakovich, who wrote his Festive Overture in just three days. Well, maybe not Mozart-fast, but pretty darned fast!


----------



## DavidA

jdec said:


> The most tremendous *genius* raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts.
> - (Richard Wagner)


Wagner had seen Amadeus, obviously! :lol:


----------



## trazom

Blancrocher said:


> I have no problem acknowledging that Mozart was a genius, but even I find that rather excessive.


By 'excessive' do you mean it's not credible? The 6 week figure is only an estimate, usually it's between 6-9; but the dates of completion of the last three symphonies (June 26, July 25, and August 10) show about 6 weeks for the last two symphonies, so it's not that unlikely, because there's also the important consideration that he was also finishing up his last two piano trios, the C major sonata k.545, and the violin sonata in F while working on the three symphonies.



Kieran said:


> There's great truth in this, but I think you're being a bit wild in saying he might have been a procrastinator. Remember that a lot of his commissions were rush jobs, and display no sign of uncertainty. If he left his piano part for a violin sonata unwritten on the page, as he did with K279 (I think), it would only be because he knew what he was going to play. This isn't procrastination, it's most likely an economic use of his time. Likewise stuff like overtures for operas, which he usually dashed off at the end. this was because the singers needed their parts first and he could run through the overture quite handily with the orchestra a day or so before the first performance.


Great post, Kieran. I think you are referring to the G major violin sonata K.379? That's a popular one, even with people who generally don't like Mozart. Hard to believe it was a rushjob(composed in less than an hour in Mozart's own words).

I remember reading a brief but interesting statement by Robert Levin about one of the enduring myths of Mozart composing "as if in a trance," something that came about during the Romantic Era:

_`A generation ago scholars thought Mozart composed everything in his head and then notated it on paper after the creative process was over. He was most certainly capable of this, as works such as the Linz symphony (composed in four days) attest. But his process of notating in layers, revealed by the different ink tints in his manuscripts, and his surviving sketches (some 90% of which were destroyed by his widow), have revealed a more nuanced sense of his creative process.''

The fragments-a larger number than by any other major composer (1 in 5 over his lifetime, 1 in 3 during the mature Vienna years)-are extraordinary in what they reveal about the creative process-both how he conceived his works and how he wrote them down. Above all, the fragments frequently contain some of his most interesting, and most experimental ideas, and not infrequently one wonders why he finished some of his works instead of those left in draft stage (and by that I don't mean the Requiem or other works begun in 1791, where clearly it is a question of death staying his hand).''_


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Wagner had seen Amadeus, obviously! :lol:


No, but he read Pushkin's _Mozart and Salieri_, which the writers of Amadeus ripped off!  In case you don't know, key passages of the screenplay were lifted word for word from a translation of Pushkin's play, including all of Salieri's grousing about why God gave such talent to WAM. The play was widely translated and read throughout the 19thc and is probably responsible for the prevalence of the rumor about the poisoning.


----------



## EdwardBast

trazom said:


> By 'excessive' do you mean it's not credible? The 6 week figure is only an estimate, usually it's between 6-9; but the dates of completion of the last three symphonies (June 26, July 25, and August 10) show about 6 weeks for the last two symphonies, so it's not that unlikely, because there's also the important consideration that he was also finishing up his last two piano trios, the C major sonata k.545, and the violin sonata in F while working on the three symphonies.


Date of completion for Mozart, I have read, is usually the date he finished a draft score, not when the work was actually done. Without examining the sketches, it is impossible to know when he started working on the three symphonies, and perhaps not even possible if they survived. But why are folks so hung up on speed of composition?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

EdwardBast said:


> But why are folks so hung up on speed of composition?


Probably the same reason people get hung up on how quickly virtuosos can play: because it's an easy way of measuring talent (in the compositional case, creative genius). Not that I agree, as I think there's a genius to slowly conceiving, revising, etc., but quickly creating masterpieces is not something many can do, so it becomes a kind of easy evidence to point to when arguing genius.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Date of completion for Mozart, I have read, is usually the date he finished a draft score, not when the work was actually done.


Where exactly have you read this? please provide the reference(s). Thanks.


----------



## trazom

EdwardBast said:


> Date of completion for Mozart, I have read, is usually the date he finished a draft score, not when the work was actually done. Without examining the sketches, it is impossible to know when he started working on the three symphonies, and perhaps not even possible if they survived.


Well, usually by the time the draft score was written down, much of the work was already completed, if only in his head. Mozart considered the completion of a work separate from writing everything down, which was the case with at least two of his late violin sonatas. If the theory about his writing the three symphonies for an imminent subscription concert is true, then he would've needed the symphonies fully scored by that time.



EdwardBast said:


> But why are folks so hung up on speed of composition?


I don't know..._I'm_ not. I only disagreed with the post I replied to, that the six-to-nine week time period wasn't as unbelievable as it was made out to be.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> Where exactly have you read this? please provide the reference(s). Thanks.


In the case of the three symphonies under discussion, Mozart dated the scores upon completion. All were in 1788. #39, 26 June; #40, 25 July; and #41, 10 August.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._40_(Mozart)


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Where exactly have you read this? please provide the reference(s). Thanks.


The source is Ulrich Konrad, Mozarts Schaffensweise: Studien zu den Werkautographen, Skizzen und Entwürfen ("Mozart's method of composition: studies of the autograph scores, sketches, and drafts"), Göttingen 1992.

Apparently, this information can also be found in Maynard Solomon's 1995 biography of Mozart.

I found the quotations of these sources in a Wikipedia article on Mozart's compositional methods


----------



## EdwardBast

never mind ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> The source is Ulrich Konrad, Mozarts Schaffensweise: Studien zu den Werkautographen, Skizzen und Entwürfen ("Mozart's method of composition: studies of the autograph scores, sketches, and drafts"), Göttingen 1992.
> 
> Apparently, this information can also be found in Maynard Solomon's 1995 biography of Mozart.
> 
> I found the quotations of these sources in a Wikipedia article on Mozart's compositional methods


I think I saw that wikipedia article, but I don't see it mentions that "the date of completion for Mozart is usually the date he finished a draft score" as you state. So if we are not talking about the same article, perhaps you could point directly to it, and to that part in specific?

Edit: never mind, I found that part. Thanks.


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> You are missing the point, even though I copied the critical phrase of the OP right there in red letters. I have acknowledged that WAM was a genius of the first order. What I am answering is why a disproportionate number of people pick his genius to talk about rather than that of other geniuses.


I am very happy to have you on board, acknowledging WAM's genius of the first order. In answer to your 2nd question, I would submit that it is because he_ accomplished it all by the very young age of 35_.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Yeah, Mozart may have been a genius but I don't really care for his piano sonatas, they're not that "genius". I'd say about half his string quartets aren't that great either (for that matter his early symphonies are meh at best too). I'm not going as far as Gould and saying Mozart died too late but he had some flaws. 

Still a genius but not in everything. Hey nobody's perfect.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> My interest is more in examining individual works closely to see how they work.


Mine too. But no-one else seems keen.



stomanek said:


> Then you should go and stand with a banner outside the Royal College of Music [...]






poconoron said:


> Does it not take "genius" to be as masterfully proficient in virtually all musical genres as he was - and all _by the age of 35_? Can you name just one other composer who mastered it all at the very highest level _by age 35_?
> 
> Do you not put enormous weight on the opinions of musical composers, musicians and musicologists who are nearly unanimous, it seems to me, in proclaiming his musical genius?
> 
> Or do you know something that the rest of us are missing somehow?


So he was a genius because he was 'proficient'? By my understanding of these terms, you might as well say he was 'great' because he was 'good'.



stomanek said:


> those of us who support the idea that M is not only a G but the greatest of them all - have cited the quality of his compositions.


Sorry, I must have missed where supporters of the idea have offered evidence beyond the restatement of his works being 'masterworks' or the output of a prodigy.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> No, but he read Pushkin's _Mozart and Salieri_, which the writers of Amadeus ripped off!  In case you don't know, key passages of the screenplay were lifted word for word from a translation of Pushkin's play, including all of Salieri's grousing about why God gave such talent to WAM. The play was widely translated and read throughout the 19thc and is probably responsible for the prevalence of the rumor about the poisoning.


Thanks! I did know that in fact. Does that make Mozart less of a genius? Is a musician of Wagner's status likely to have taken the play into account even if he knew it?


----------



## DaveM

I guess that for some people (likely very, very few), the only thing that would convince them that someone with Mozart's creative credentials -crammed into only 36 years- (and that have stood up to the test of time & comparison with so many other composers for well over 200 years) is a genius would be if a supreme being descended from the heavens and proclaimed him so. But even then, I wouldn't be surprised if...


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> For some people (likely very, very few), the only thing that would convince them that someone with the creative credentials -crammed into only 35 years- of Mozart (that have stood up to the test of time & comparison with so many other composers for well over 200 years) is a genius would be if a supreme being descended from the heavens and proclaimed him so. But even then, I wouldn't be surprised if...


I'm not sure anyone posting in this thread asking to be 'convinced' that he is a genius. But some, including me, are asking for an explanation of the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works. Endless repetition of 'Figaro is a masterpiece' or, 'prodigy' or 'everyone says so' offers nothing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure anyone posting in this thread asking to be 'convinced' that he is a genius. *But some, including me, are asking for an explanation of the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works.* Endless repetition of 'Figaro is a masterpiece' or, 'prodigy' or 'everyone says so' offers nothing.


well you could say the same about Beethoven - was he a genius - yes - what about an explanation of the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works - he wrote masterworks - just like Mozart. It's all subjective - you can no more relate the meaning of the word genius to Beethoven than I can to Mozart. Which leaves us noweher at all except that the word genius is applied by more people more often to Mozart than to Beethoven. To many pop fans Bieber is a genius - and M and B are mediocre bores.

End of discussion I suppose.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure anyone posting in this thread asking to be 'convinced' that he is a genius. But some, including me, are asking for an explanation of the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works. Endless repetition of 'Figaro is a masterpiece' or, 'prodigy' or 'everyone says so' offers nothing.


C'mon, be honest, you'll find fault with any conceivable attempt to convince. And, just for the record, there has been attempts to explain the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works, but you dismissed them as inadequate.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> well you could say the same about Beethoven


Well you could...and I would ask the same question.



DaveM said:


> C'mon, be honest, you'll find fault with any conceivable attempt to convince.


You still think I'm after 'convincing'? Why can't you accept that I'm looking for illustration, explanation, exemplification, clarification?



DaveM said:


> And, just for the record, there has been attempts to explain the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works,


Where? Point me to one. If there is a decent example of how x work is a clear illustration of how his use of x is, for example, "unlike anything that had gone before" that I've overlooked, then I'll concede...that I've overlooked an example, at any rate.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DaveM said:


> C'mon, be honest, you'll find fault with any conceivable attempt to convince. And, just for the record, there has been attempts to explain the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works, but you dismissed them as inadequate.


agreed - dont waste any more time with Beethoven's chief all time fan. There has been adequate and convincing discussion on this already - he's just smarting from the fact that Mozart seems to be more famous than Beethoven and is referred to as a genius more than Beethoven. And sitting as he is now listening to the choral finale of ludwig van's ninth symphony - that is something he just cannot fathom


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> agreed - dont waste any more time with Beethoven's chief all time fan. There has been adequate and convincing discussion on this already - he's just smarting from the fact that Mozart seems to be more famous than Beethoven and is referred to as a genius more than Beethoven. And sitting as he is now listening to the choral finale of ludwig van's ninth symphony - that is something he just cannot fathom


No smarting, nothing I can't fathom...and no adequate or convincing discussion.


----------



## DaveM

stomanek said:


> agreed - dont waste any more time with Beethoven's chief all time fan. There has been adequate and convincing discussion on this already - he's just smarting from the fact that Mozart seems to be more famous than Beethoven and is referred to as a genius more than Beethoven. And sitting as he is now listening to the choral finale of ludwig van's ninth symphony - that is something he just cannot fathom


Sometimes I just enjoy getting on the merry-go-round for a turn or two.  Actually, I would be happy proclaiming myself to be Beethoven's all time fan, but when it comes to Mozart, those final 4 operas alone, coming from such a young man, would almost be enough to satisfy my criteria of a genius. But I don't think anyone here has to prove the point; it is accepted worldwide.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> Sometimes I just enjoy getting on the merry-go-round for a turn or two.  Actually, I would be happy proclaiming myself to be Beethoven's all time fan, but when it comes to Mozart, those final 4 operas alone, coming from such a young man, would almost be enough to satisfy my criteria of a genius. But I don't think anyone here has to be prove the point; it is accepted worldwide.


Agree, Mozart's genius is accepted worldwide by scholars, musicians, historians and most importantly of all, ordinary listeners consistently over time.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> No smarting, nothing I can't fathom...and no adequate or convincing discussion.


you seem to be alone in your view on this thread if you dont think Mozart's works signify his genius


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> you seem to be alone in your view on this thread if you dont think Mozart's works signify his genius


I think what MacLeod is saying - and I agree with him - is that nobody seems to have provided _actual explanations_ for how Mozart is a (or the greatest) genius other than pointing at specific works and saying "see?"

Talk to me like I'm stupid. _How_ does that specific work actually demonstrate Mozart's genius? Don't rely on supposedly self-evident claims that are ultimately meaningless, such as "perfection" or "beauty". It's not enough, it's not convincing because those are personal reactions. Or if you think "perfection" is an objective quality, then explain how this Mozart work achieves perfection and other works don't. And so on. _Actual explanations._


----------



## Headphone Hermit

stomanek said:


> you seem to be alone in your view on this thread if you dont think Mozart's works signify his genius


I love Mozart's music (and I think MacLeod does too). By asking 'what constitutes Mozart's genius in a particular work?' we are not denying his genius, we are asking for "illustration, explanation, exemplification, clarification" rather than the 'proof by assertion' or accusations of genuis-denial.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Headphone Hermit said:


> I love Mozart's music (and I think MacLeod does too). By asking 'what constitutes Mozart's genius in a particular work?' we are not denying his genius, we are asking for "illustration, explanation, exemplification, clarification" rather than the 'proof by assertion' or accusations of genuis-denial.


I'm yet another who agrees with the growing chorus of people who just want you Mozart zealots to put a little thought into your pontifications. It grows tiresome to read post after post of "he was such a genius", "no other composer comes close to his greatness", & (most irritatingly) "he could do no wrong in any musical genre, he took on...", with no insight into why the person remarking such things feels that way.

Like I said though no one here hates or even dislikes Mozart, there are just some who feel that he was one of _several_ great composers who also happened to have some merits of "genius".


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> you seem to be alone in your view on this thread if you dont think Mozart's works signify his genius


You might quote the post from which you deduce what I seem...

Thanks to Nereffid and Headphone Hermit. I was beginning to think I was speaking a foreign language!


----------



## Fugue Meister

MacLeod said:


> You might quote the post from which you deduce what I seem...
> 
> Thanks to Nereffid and Headphone Hermit. I was beginning to think I was speaking a foreign language!


........... Ahem.


----------



## DavidA

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm yet another who agrees with the growing chorus of people *who just want you Mozart zealots to put a little thought into your pontifications. * It grows tiresome to read post after post of "he was such a genius", "no other composer comes close to his greatness", & (most irritatingly) "he could do no wrong in any musical genre, he took on...", with no insight into why the person remarking such things feels that way.
> 
> Like I said though no one here hates or even dislikes Mozart, there are just some who feel that he was one of _several_ great composers who also happened to have some merits of "genius".


Actually it would help if certain other people could put some thought in as well! Of course we recognise there were other great geniuses in the realm of composition. Maybe we just took it as read that people would assume that without us commenting on it. 
And liking Mozart's music and considering him one of the great geniuses of music does not qualify someone as a 'zealot' a person A zealot is 'someone who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.' In considering Mozart a genius we are not being zealots but just agreeing with what most of the informed classical music world already thinks.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Thanks! I did know that in fact. Does that make Mozart less of a genius? Is a musician of Wagner's status likely to have taken the play into account even if he knew it?


The point is that the silly mythology in Amadeus, which you implied could not have been known by Wagner, has been around for 200 years, and anyone from 1840 on could have read large portions of Amadeus' script by picking up Pushkin's play. And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods. But he surely had the discernment to have made his judgment of Mozart's genius based on the music alone, which is what the rest of us should be doing.

No one has been arguing that Mozart is less of a genius! Where do you get this idea? My point is that people should stop elevating him as a God beyond all other composers based on myths that have been exposed as false. All of the big myths have been debunked - that he reproduced a sonata on one hearing, that he created whole compositions in his head and then wrote them down, that he received his music in a quasi divine way and didn't need to sketch, rework and revise. It's all bunk. Repeating it makes people sound like dupes and cultists.

Edit: And as Fugue Meister said: It is irritating. And, in fact, it does sound like religious fanaticism.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> The point is that the silly mythology in Amadeus, which you implied could not have been known by Wagner, has been around for 200 years, and anyone from 1840 on could have read large portions of Amadeus' script by picking up Pushkin's play. And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods. But he surely had the discernment to have made his judgment of Mozart's genius based on the music alone, which is what the rest of us should be doing.
> 
> No one has been arguing that Mozart is less of a genius! Where do you get this idea? My point is that people should stop elevating him as a God beyond all other composers based on myths that have been exposed as false. All of the big myths have been debunked - that he reproduced a sonata on one hearing, that he created whole compositions in his head and then wrote them down, that he received his music in a quasi divine way and didn't need to sketch, rework and revise. It's all bunk. Repeating it makes people sound like dupes and cultists.
> 
> Edit: And as Fugue Meister said: It is irritating. And, in fact, it does sound like religious fanaticism.


Your problem is you are imagining all sorts of things people are saying when they are not. Religious fanaticism? How on earth does considering Mozart a genius equate with religious fanaticism? We all know, thanks very much, that the myths propagated about Mozart are untrue or exaggerated. I am fairly well read on Mozart myself as are many of his admirers. Why do you think you need to keep banging on about these myths as if we are so gullible? There are also some of us who admire and love Mozart who love many other composers as well. I personally consider Bach and Beethoven - in their very different ways - on a par with WAM. With respect, I do think you yourself need to put your own suppositions aside.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> The point is that the silly mythology in Amadeus, which you implied could not have been known by Wagner, has been around for 200 years, and anyone from 1840 on could have read large portions of Amadeus' script by picking up Pushkin's play. And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods.


Are you really serious? I thought you were joking when you stated about Wagner in this way: "_No, but he read Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri, which the writers of Amadeus ripped off!_"

So if you were indeed NOT joking, where did you read that Wagner read Pushkin's Mozart and Salieri? If you were joking, but really believe (or simply speculate) that Wagner referred to the "tremendous genius (above all masters, centuries, arts)" of Mozart based on possibly reading Pushkin's poetic drama*, that would be just ridiculous and insult to Wagner's intellect in my opinion (he obviously would know it's just a poetic drama*, right?).

How about his one:
"Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years." 
- Joseph Haydn on Mozart (maybe just after he had a precognitive dream about Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri"?)

(*Drama: is the specific mode of narrative, typically _fictional_, represented in performance.)


----------



## mmsbls

If someone asked me whether Einstein were a genius, I could give a detailed explanation of why physicists view his work with the highest esteem, why they find certain work profound, and why he rose above others in his physics insight. I do not know enough about music to do that with Mozart. So while I can't really tell others why they ought to believe Mozart was a genius, I can say why I believe that.

I have repeatedly read a variety of quotes from a wide range of significant figures in music. Those quotes do not indicate that Mozart was just a great composer, but they seem to go farther indicating that he had qualities that other composers either did not or did not in such quantity. Examples are given here.

Examples that pertain to specific works are:



> There are things in the world about which nothing can be said, as Mozart's C Major Symphony, much of Shakespeare and pages ofBeethoven. - Schumann





> In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle; it is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven. - Brahms


Phil Goulding's book talks about the music gurus saying there are things in other great comoposer's works that "some might have been written differently, but not in Mozart."

These are opinions and some could even be mistaken quotes (i.e. never said), but I have enough confidence in their general veracity to believe that large numbers of knowledgeable people viewed Mozart as truly special and having qualities that other composers simply did not have. Further he wrote works that struck some as almost other worldlike.

So I view Mozart as a genius.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> The point is that the silly mythology in Amadeus, which you implied could not have been known by Wagner, has been around for 200 years, and anyone from 1840 on could have read large portions of Amadeus' script by picking up Pushkin's play. And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods.


By the way, this is Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri" play (did you know it's only 12 pages):

http://prosoidia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mozsal.pdf

Again, it does not make sense to me that someone could think or imply that an individual of the stature of Wagner could have based his assessment of Mozart's genius just on reading this Pushkin's short play.

Regarding this other quote by Goethe, what would you think he meant with "phenomenon"?

"A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing."
- (Goethe)


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Your problem is you are imagining all sorts of things people are saying when they are not. Religious fanaticism? How on earth does considering Mozart a genius equate with religious fanaticism? We all know, thanks very much, that the myths propagated about Mozart are untrue or exaggerated. I am fairly well read on Mozart myself as are many of his admirers. Why do you think you need to keep banging on about these myths as if we are so gullible? There are also some of us who admire and love Mozart who love many other composers as well. I personally consider Bach and Beethoven - in their very different ways - on a par with WAM. With respect, I do think you yourself need to put your own suppositions aside.


If you examine the thread above, you can probably figure out that I was primarily addressing two other TC members whose worship of Mozart approaches the fanatical and who doggedly fought for his exclusive right to deification. Of course most people who enjoy Mozart are rational people, yourself included I will assume. The reason I was "banging on" today is because you asked me why I was challenging or diminishing Mozart's genius, when I wasn't. So I explained what I was in fact doing - which, apparently, is banging on!


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> By the way, this is Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri" play (did you know it's only 12 pages):
> 
> Again, it does not make sense to me that someone could think or imply that an individual of the stature of Wagner could have based his assessment of Mozart's genius just on reading this Pushkin's short play.


I didn't, as you can see if you read the posts above, where I wrote: "But [Wagner] surely had the discernment to have made his judgment of Mozart's genius based on the music alone, which is what the rest of us should be doing." I had previously suggested that Wagner, like many others before modern research debunked the inflated claims, might have bought into some of the pervasive mythology.



jdec said:


> Regarding this other quote by Goethe, what would you think he meant with "phenomenon"?
> 
> "A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing."
> - (Goethe)


He probably meant the same thing anyone else means by phenomenon. Is this a trick question?


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> The point is that the silly mythology in Amadeus, which you implied could not have been known by Wagner, has been around for 200 years, and anyone from 1840 on could have read large portions of Amadeus' script by picking up Pushkin's play. And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods. But he surely had the discernment to have made his judgment of Mozart's genius based on the music alone, which is what the rest of us should be doing.
> 
> No one has been arguing that Mozart is less of a genius! Where do you get this idea? My point is that people should stop elevating him as a God beyond all other composers based on myths that have been exposed as false. All of the big myths have been debunked - that he reproduced a sonata on one hearing, that he created whole compositions in his head and then wrote them down, that he received his music in a quasi divine way and didn't need to sketch, rework and revise. It's all bunk. Repeating it makes people sound like dupes and cultists.
> 
> Edit: And as Fugue Meister said: It is irritating. And, in fact, it does sound like religious fanaticism.


I think you are losing credibility if you think a figure like Wagner did not know enough of Mozart's music and base his judgement on that - rather than a silly play by Pushkin that I think was really quite obscure.

We do have a problem here - because the quality of a composition cannot be measured - in the same way that IQ can tell you how intelligent someone is - so we are left to rely on opinions of listeners, musicians and composers past and present. A vast ocean of subjectvity out which we can try in vain to get hold of a slippery fish. We never will of course but its the closest we can get.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> If someone asked me whether Einstein were a genius, I could give a detailed explanation of why physicists view his work with the highest esteem, why they find certain work profound, and why he rose above others in his physics insight. I do not know enough about music to do that with Mozart. So while I can't really tell others why they ought to believe Mozart was a genius, I can say why I believe that.


You make an excellent point. I have listened to virtually all the major operas, symphonies and concertos (and lot of chamber music) over decades. Just as is true for others here that have done the same, I think that gives me some credibility when I say that Mozart's most-acclaimed operas are on a short list of best-ever and are indicative of genius-level creation. But I'm not a musicologist and I can't drill down to the musical minutiae that the few members of the star chamber above seem to demand.

But, then again, I doubt that they have the musical sophistication to be able to appreciate the musical minutiae (they seem to demand) that I might come up with even if I could. So, considering that so many experts have already proven the point of Mozart's genius, I would suggest that anyone demanding proof to their satisfaction should go to Mr. Google and do their own research because I have no clue what would satisfy them.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I think you are losing credibility if you think a figure like Wagner did not know enough of Mozart's music and base his judgement on that - rather than a silly play by Pushkin that I think was really quite obscure.
> 
> We do have a problem here - because the quality of a composition cannot be measured - in the same way that IQ can tell you how intelligent someone is - so we are left to rely on opinions of listeners, musicians and composers past and present. A vast ocean of subjectvity out which we can try in vain to get hold of a slippery fish. We never will of course but its the closest we can get.


Please read the quotation in #309 of #303. It's not like the statement is cleverly concealed. Sheez!


----------



## PlaySalieri

*And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods. But he surely had the discernment to have made his judgment of Mozart's genius based on the music alone, which is what the rest of us should be doing.*

You seem to give as much credance to the notion that W was influenced by the myths.
I would have thought you had read enough of the comments in this thread to understand that only Mozart's music is being taken into consideration. And we have provided ample proof that many or even most of the most notable figures in musical history regard his music as having the stamp of genius.


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> There are things in the world about which nothing can be said, as Mozart's C Major Symphony, much of Shakespeare and pages ofBeethoven. - Schumann
> 
> In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle; it is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven. - Brahms


But I'm afraid that, really, these statements are meaningless unless you already agree with them.

"Nothing can be said" about Mozart's C major symphony (which I presume is no.41)? Or "pages of Beethoven"? Which pages, anyway? I guess Schumann simply means "OMG these are so _awesome_!" but that's just personal opinion.
What does Brahms mean by "perfect"? _What_ is perfect or miraculous about Figaro?
Show me the money!

And again, for the hard of thinking, I'm not saying these things _aren't_ magnificent. It's just that seeing as _I_ can't articulate in any way why I think they're magnificent, I'd like to know if anyone can.


----------



## Guest

Fugue Meister said:


> ........... Ahem.


And Fugue Meister, of course. I didn't see your post before I pressed 'reply'. Thanks.


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> *But I'm afraid that, really, these statements are meaningless unless you already agree with them.*
> 
> "Nothing can be said" about Mozart's C major symphony (which I presume is no.41)? Or "pages of Beethoven"? Which pages, anyway? I guess Schumann simply means "OMG these are so _awesome_!" but that's just personal opinion.
> What does Brahms mean by "perfect"? _What_ is perfect or miraculous about Figaro?
> Show me the money!
> 
> And again, for the hard of thinking, I'm not saying these things _aren't_ magnificent. It's just that seeing as _I_ can't articulate in any way why I think they're magnificent, I'd like to know if anyone can.


Bit like Newton or Einstein commenting on the work of a physicists I would think. The qualifications of the men commenting surely carry weight. Some of us know what they mean without having to have it spelled out to us at length.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Nereffid said:


> *But I'm afraid that, really, these statements are meaningless unless you already agree with them.
> *
> "Nothing can be said" about Mozart's C major symphony (which I presume is no.41)? Or "pages of Beethoven"? Which pages, anyway? I guess Schumann simply means "OMG these are so _awesome_!" but that's just personal opinion.
> What does Brahms mean by "perfect"? _What_ is perfect or miraculous about Figaro?
> Show me the money!
> 
> And again, for the hard of thinking, I'm not saying these things _aren't_ magnificent. It's just that seeing as _I_ can't articulate in any way why I think they're magnificent, I'd like to know if anyone can.


And you could probably say the same for 80% of all that is stated on this forum - since it is mostly listeners expressing their appreciation of music they like. So what you have said is not really much.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> *And it is quite possible Wagner was deceived by inflated claims about Mozart's feats and misinformation about his working methods. But he surely had the discernment to have made his judgment of Mozart's genius based on the music alone, which is what the rest of us should be doing.*
> 
> You seem to give as much credance to the notion that W was influenced by the myths.
> I would have thought you had read enough of the comments in this thread to understand that only Mozart's music is being taken into consideration. And we have provided ample proof that many or even most of the most notable figures in musical history regard his music as having the stamp of genius.


I said "possible" he was misled by inflated claims and "surely" able to make his judgment based on the music alone. How on earth do you get equal credence out of that? Obviously, surely gives more credence than possible.

_I_ said he has the stamp of genius - about seven times! As I made quite clear, that wasn't the question I was addressing. I was answering the specific question from the OP: Why his name is associated in print with the word more than others whose music is equally ingenious. I gave several plausible answers to the question: Widely held myths and BS about Mozart which one does not hear about the other geniuses. If you don't want to talk about that issue, you don't have to. But most of your responses have simply been off point.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Take this post from Orfeo (best mahler set thread)

*For instance, my personal favorite is Bernstein's second set with the New York Philharmonic,* the Royal Concertgebouw, & the Vienna Philharmonic (DG). Yes, he is accused of performing the works as though they were written specially for him to conduct, *but these performing testaments are like no others*. Like Mahler, Bernstein was never afraid to let himself so (too much so for some, I concede). *But it is not so frequent that we see such an affinity between conductor and composer*, *as though there's total empathy for the man and his art* (especially since Bernstein himself pondered the matters of life and death towards his final years). *His recording of the Ninth is perhaps the most devastating ever for that reason.*

I have highlighted in bold all that which is pure subjectivism - beyond proof - not objective.

It didnt take me long to find that and I could post much more. So stop saying obvious things - of course we are all just music lovers saying awesome wow! in one way or another - any fool knows that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I said "possible" he was misled by inflated claims and "surely" able to make his judgment based on the music alone. How on earth do you get equal credence out of that? Obviously, surely gives more credence than possible.
> 
> I said he has the stamp of genius for God's sake! That wasn't the question. *The question is why his name is associated in print with the word more than others whose music is equally ingenious.*


I think saying it is possible is the objection - I wouldn't give that possibility 1 chance in a billion. Had pushkin's play never existed or amadeus - I am really quite sure the stats would be much as they are.


----------



## Truckload

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not sure about this, but isn't it known now that Mozart often sketched and reworked material extensively in composing his late works?


I also have read that Mozart did some revisions to his later works. Probably not as extensively as some other composers, like Beethoven.


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> I was answering the specific question from the OP: Why his name is associated in print with the word more than others whose music is equally ingenious.


_Because he accomplished it all by age 35................_


----------



## EdwardBast

Truckload said:


> I also have read that Mozart did some revisions to his later works. Probably not as extensively as some other composers, like Beethoven.


He sketched and reworked like everyone else. It is well established. His wife burned 90% of the sketches. None of this is controversial. Beethoven probably did it more because in his instrumental works he went way beyond the conventions of the classical style, consistently executing thoroughly new formal experiments.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> *He sketched and reworked like everyone else*. It is well established. His wife burned 90% of the sketches. None of this is controversial. Beethoven probably did it more because in his instrumental works he went way beyond the conventions of the classical style, consistently executing thoroughly new formal experiments.


How many times do we have to say that this is irrelevant to our regard for Mozart's genius. His genius did not lie in how he produced the works but in the incredible perfection of the finished product. I don't care how many sketches he made and revised for Figaro. Whenever I hear it I still marvel at the sheer perfection and sublimity of the music!


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I think saying it is possible is the objection - I wouldn't give that possibility 1 chance in a billion. Had pushkin's play never existed or amadeus - I am really quite sure the stats would be much as they are.


So you don't think it possible that Wagner heard the widely disseminated misinformation that Mozart didn't need to sketch and rework his material and that he could memorize and play back a sonata movement on one hearing, etc.? Why? Thousands of people heard those factoids. It's not like he was living in China.


----------



## ArtMusic

poconoron said:


> _Because he accomplished it all by age 35................_


Say no more, pure and simple historical fact. 

And the poor genius had the Requiem incomplete at his last creative strength, one of the greatest mass/church music too.


----------



## Guest

poconoron said:


> _Because he accomplished it all by age 35................_


But what is "it"? A body of work, yes. A much admired and praised body of work, yes. A body of work that is extolled by many composers, musicologists and lovers of classical music, yes.

But all that tells us that it is praised, not _why _it is so revered.

The OP didn't ask 'whether' but 'why'. If the only answer being provided is, "Because he was a genius" then those who have nothing more than that to offer can consider their work done.

For those who seem incapable of separating my questions from an assumption that I am adversely critical, rest assured that Mozart's reputation remains intact, whatever my opinion. That is the point of course. Mozart's reputation as a genius does not rest on my _opinion_, or anyone else's. It rests on a set of musical attributes that so far, no one has cared to describe.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> How many times do we have to say that this is irrelevant to our regard for Mozart's genius. His genius did not lie in how he produced the works but in the incredible perfection of the finished product. I don't care how many sketches he made and revised for Figaro. Whenever I hear it I still marvel at the sheer perfection and sublimity of the music!


You don't have to say it at all because no one, including me, thinks it is relevant to your regard for Mozart. It was a purely factual amplification of information Truckload had heard.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> But what is "it"? A body of work, yes. A much admired and praised body of work, yes. A body of work that is extolled by many composers, musicologists and lovers of classical music, yes.
> 
> But all that tells us that it is praised, not _why _it is so revered.
> 
> The OP didn't ask 'whether' but 'why'. If the only answer being provided is, "Because he was a genius" then those who have nothing more than that to offer can consider their work done.
> 
> For those who seem incapable of separating my questions from an assumption that I am adversely critical, rest assured that Mozart's reputation remains intact, whatever my opinion. That is the point of course. Mozart's reputation as a genius does not rest on my _opinion_, or anyone else's. It rests on a set of musical attributes that so far, no one has cared to describe.


There are many objective musical analyses throughout history to show his creative genius if you wish to dig deeper into. It's pretty simple.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> So you don't think it possible that Wagner heard the widely disseminated misinformation that Mozart didn't need to sketch and rework his material and that he could memorize and play back a sonata movement on one hearing, etc.? Why? Thousands of people heard those factoids. It's not like he was living in China.


I don't think Wagner would care whether Mozart sketched or reworked a piece of music. I'm sure it was the finished product what he marveled at.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> There are many objective musical analyses throughout history to show his creative genius if you wish to dig deeper into. It's pretty simple.


So simple, yet you're either unable or unwilling to reproduce even a brief summary.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> He sketched and reworked like everyone else. It is well established. His wife burned 90% of the sketches. None of this is controversial. Beethoven probably did it more because in his instrumental works he went way beyond the conventions of the classical style, consistently executing thoroughly new formal experiments.


Also, I don't think Mozart spent that much time sketching or reworking his music in comparison to other composers. Otherwise, how is that he was able to produce such an ouput at the age of 35? just to put things into this perspective, compare the net time of music of these 3, and taking into account the time they lived!:

Beethoven's complete works fit in about* 86 CDs*.
Bach's complete works fit in about *155 CDs*.
Mozart's complete works fit in about *170 CDs*.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Stephen Colbert must be following this thread (and the hilarious "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart" thread, too), because he offered up his own convincing evidence earlier today. Just when I was beginning to be convinced that Mozart was objectively the greatest composer of all time, too. Darn.


----------



## jdec

DiesIraeCX said:


> Stephen Colbert must be following this thread (and the hilarious "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart" thread, too), because he offered up his own convincing evidence earlier today. Just when I was beginning to be convinced that Mozart was objectively the greatest composer of all time, too. Darn.
> 
> View attachment 81087


Under those circumstances, I for sure would put my money on Beethoven too.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> Also, I don't think Mozart spent that much time sketching or reworking his music in comparison to other composers. Otherwise, how is that he was able to produce such an ouput at the age of 35? just to put things into this perspective, compare the net time of music of these 3, and taking into account the time they lived!:
> 
> Beethoven's complete works fit in about* 86 CDs*.
> Bach's complete works fit in about *155 CDs*.
> Mozart's complete works fit in about *170 CDs*.


I actually did the math on this a few months ago. Mozart wrote better than three times the music per year as Haydn or Beethoven. He obviously wasn't agonizing over too much of his music, and he may have skipped a few potty breaks as well.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> I don't think Wagner would care whether Mozart sketched or reworked a piece of music. I'm sure it was the finished product what he marveled at.


Well, of course, listening to Mozart he would care about the music. But it beggars belief that he would not have professional curiosity about the working methods of a composer he admired so much.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Also, I don't think Mozart spent that much time sketching or reworking his music in comparison to other composers. Otherwise, how is that he was able to produce such an ouput at the age of 35? just to put things into this perspective, compare the net time of music of these 3, and taking into account the time they lived!:
> 
> Beethoven's complete works fit in about* 86 CDs*.
> Bach's complete works fit in about *155 CDs*.
> Mozart's complete works fit in about *170 CDs*.


Of course he probably sketched less than Beethoven. He was usually writing within well-established stylistic parameters in much of his instrumental music. In any case, why speculate? Sources describing Mozart's sketches are cited up thread and if it is important to you, you can read and find out.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Sources describing Mozart's sketches are cited up thread and if it is important to you, you can read and find out.


In fact it seems much more important to you than to me, you have made a bit too much emphasis on it.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> So simple, yet you're either unable or unwilling to reproduce even a brief summary.


Why does anyone here have to satisfy you and meet your criteria? Or are you unable to do internet research?


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> So simple, yet you're either unable or unwilling to reproduce even a brief summary.


As my professor says to her students, "here is the prescribed reading list". I am thankful to be educated on this subject.


----------



## SimonNZ

ArtMusic said:


> As my professor says to her students, "here is the prescribed reading list". I am thankful to be educated on this subject.


If you're the one making the claims that there is "objective musical analysis", not to mention boasting about your education, then the onus is on you to back that up with examples. Or we'll just assume you have no such education, and have done no such reading.

As I've now been replying for three years, to a great many of your four thousand similar posts.


----------



## ArtMusic

SimonNZ said:


> If you're the one making the claims that there is "objective musical analysis", not to mention boasting about your education, then the onus is on you to back that up with examples. Or we'll just assume you have no such education, and have done no such reading.
> 
> As I've now been replying for three years, to a great many of your four thousand similar posts.


My answer, as before, is to visit your local university college music library and immerse your own interest on the subject with wide reading. That was what was expected of me and that is what I have learned to agree to develop my own opinion on the matter of musical creative genius.

An excellent place to start is to examine the different nurturing and prodigy of Mendelssohn and Mozart; contrast between the 
two to appreciate their prodigious genius to get a good historical feel for the subject.


----------



## SimonNZ

You arrogantly assume I, and others who question you unsubstantiated claims, have done no reading of our own or have no education.

Your answer is no answer because, as I said, the onus is on you to back up your own statements - particularly if you're going to brag about your book-learnin'.


----------



## Becca

ArtMusic said:


> There are many objective musical analyses throughout history to show his creative genius if you wish to dig deeper into. It's pretty simple.


Nonsense, there can be no such thing as an objective analysis to prove genius, it is all subjective.


----------



## ArtMusic

Becca said:


> Nonsense, there can be no such thing as an objective analysis to prove genius, it is all subjective.


Alright, if one is concerned about the word "genius", then please don't use it./ There is however no question that Mozart was supremely one of the very greatest composer of all time, and one of the most creative human minds in any endeavor. The rest is plain semantics.

This is one of hundreds of proofs. Composed when he was 21!


----------



## Becca

I am not concerned with 'genius', that is opinion and not one I will argue, the issue is talking about "objective musical analyses" when such a thing can't exist in this context, and that is hardly 'semantics' as I am sure (or at least hope) that your professors would have told you.


----------



## ArtMusic

Becca said:


> I am not concerned with 'genius', that is opinion and not one I will argue, the issue is talking about "objective musical analyses" when such a thing can't exist in this context, and that is hardly 'semantics' as I am sure (or at least hope) that your professors would have told you.


Objective musical analysis exists to show how the theme was developed for example, in the Classical sonata form. Listen to the concerto no.9 I just posted, read the score with it if you can/have access to the score, contrast with piano concertos of the same period, which you will quickly discover there are none comparable. The outstanding piece was none other than a work of genius by the great Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

This was composed by the 17 year old, arguably the first Romantic symphony!


----------



## Becca

Perhaps the meaning of the word 'objective' has changed since I taught at the university level.


----------



## Chronochromie

ArtMusic said:


> Objective musical analysis exists to show how the theme was developed for example, in the Classical sonata form. Listen to the concerto no.9 I just posted, read the score with it if you can/have access to the score, contrast with piano concertos of the same period, which you will quickly discover there are none comparable. The outstanding piece was none other than a work of genius by the great Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
> 
> This was composed by the 17 year old, arguably the first Romantic symphony!


If that's "Romantic" then CPE Bach's symphonies and Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies are too. And those were composed before Mozart's 25th by the way.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Alright, if one is concerned about the word "genius", then please don't use it./ There is however no question that Mozart was supremely one of the very greatest composer of all time, and one of the most creative human minds in any endeavor. The rest is plain semantics.
> 
> This is one of hundreds of proofs.


It's proof of nothing but your own inability to construct an argument that supports the contentions being made. It may be semantics to point this out, but to suggest we can leave out the word 'genius' in a discussion about 'genius' is Supremely one of the most absurd ideas ever conceived by the great ArtMusic !



DaveM said:


> Why does anyone here have to satisfy you and meet your criteria? Or are you unable to do internet research?


No one _has _to. Participation here is entirely voluntary. But it's not much of an internet forum if I have to go away elsewhere to find evidence of what some report is obvious, self-evident and 'simple'.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> You don't have to say it at all because no one, including me, thinks it is relevant to your regard for Mozart. It was a purely factual amplification of information Truckload had heard.


Sorry I just can't see what on earth you are trying to get across in this pointless argument. We marvel at the music! Don't you think that might be the point of music? Or is the point of music looking up how many revisions someone did of the final score?


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> But what is "it"? A body of work, yes. A much admired and praised body of work, yes. A body of work that is extolled by many composers, musicologists and lovers of classical music, yes.
> 
> But all that tells us that it is praised, not _why _it is so revered.
> 
> The OP didn't ask 'whether' but 'why'. If the only answer being provided is, "Because he was a genius" then those who have nothing more than that to offer can consider their work done.
> 
> For those who seem incapable of separating my questions from an assumption that I am adversely critical, rest assured that Mozart's reputation remains intact, whatever my opinion. That is the point of course. Mozart's reputation as a genius does not rest on my _opinion_, or anyone else's. It rests on a set of musical attributes that so far, no one has cared to describe.


Saint-Fox - the french musicoloist in his study of mozart's symphonic output has described in technical analysis - why - for example - the finale of sy 41 stands as the pruduct of a super human intelligence. He goes through it bar by bar. If you want I will scan it in and email it to you and anyone else for that matter.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> Well, of course, listening to Mozart he would care about the music. But it beggars belief that he would not have professional curiosity about the working methods of a composer he admired so much.


Can you give me some contemporary evidence as to whether Wagner studied Mozart's working methods?


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> So you don't think it possible that Wagner heard the widely disseminated misinformation that Mozart didn't need to sketch and rework his material and that he could memorize and play back a sonata movement on one hearing, etc.? Why? Thousands of people heard those factoids. It's not like he was living in China.


If he did know about them - they would not have influenced his assessment.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chronochromie said:


> If that's "Romantic" then CPE Bach's symphonies and Haydn's Sturm und Drang symphonies are too. And those were composed before Mozart's 25th by the way.


CPEs symphonies are 3 movements with a first mvt lasting approx 4 minutes. looking on you tube his symphonies last a total of 11-12 minutes, sy 25 is approx 20 minutes. sy 25 is a much more expansive work than anything CPE wrote. the mvts are much more equal in importance and in my view - more strikingly original than anything I have heard from that era - including haydn - bit I am not arguing that sy 25 is the first romantic sy


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> Saint-Fox - the french musicoloist in his study of mozart's symphonic output has described in technical analysis - why - for example - the finale of sy 41 stands as the pruduct of a super human intelligence. He goes through it bar by bar. If you want I will scan it in and email it to you and anyone else for that matter.


Thanks for the offer. I'll not ask you to go to the trouble - I'll do some reading around Saint-Foix instead, thanks.


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> CPEs symphonies are 3 movements with a first mvt lasting approx 4 minutes. looking on you tube his symphonies last a total of 11-12 minutes, sy 25 is well over 20 minutes. sy 25 is a much more expansive work than anything CPE wrote. the mvts are much more equal in importance.


So? How does that contradict what I said? My point was that Mozart's 25th isn't "the first Romantic symphony", and neither are any of CPE Bach's or Haydn's symphonies.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> No one _has _to. Participation here is entirely voluntary. But it's not much of an internet forum if I have to go away elsewhere to find evidence of what some report is obvious, self-evident and 'simple'.


Well apparently, no one is going to give evidence that meets your requirements, so I guess you'll have to go elsewhere.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for the offer. I'll not ask you to go to the trouble - I'll do some reading around Saint-Foix instead, thanks.


ok well I mentioned saint fox as many other mozart books are full of the kind of revernet rhetoric you would expect - but the saint fox is much more analytical.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> Take this post from Orfeo (best mahler set thread)
> 
> *For instance, my personal favorite is Bernstein's second set with the New York Philharmonic,* the Royal Concertgebouw, & the Vienna Philharmonic (DG). Yes, he is accused of performing the works as though they were written specially for him to conduct, *but these performing testaments are like no others*. Like Mahler, Bernstein was never afraid to let himself so (too much so for some, I concede). *But it is not so frequent that we see such an affinity between conductor and composer*, *as though there's total empathy for the man and his art* (especially since Bernstein himself pondered the matters of life and death towards his final years). *His recording of the Ninth is perhaps the most devastating ever for that reason.*
> 
> I have highlighted in bold all that which is pure subjectivism - beyond proof - not objective.
> 
> It didnt take me long to find that and I could post much more. So stop saying obvious things - of course we are all just music lovers saying awesome wow! in one way or another - any fool knows that.


Sorry, it just seemed from this thread that the people who say Mozart was a genius are taking it as a fact. If you agree that it's a purely subjective opinion then I'm not sure why there's a need to get shirty with people whose purely subjective opinion is that he wasn't a genius.


----------



## KenOC

I suspect that most would agree that Shakespeare was a genius, and most would rate Mozart likewise. Subjective to be sure, but a commonly held view. Any disagreement has the onus of disproval (and good luck with that).


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> It's proof of nothing but your own inability to construct an argument that supports the contentions being made. It may be semantics to point this out, but to suggest we can leave out the word 'genius' in a discussion about 'genius' is Supremely one of the most absurd ideas ever conceived by the great ArtMusic !


Thanks!  Mozart's greatness as a composer is a historical fact. Call him genius, call him "Wolfy", call him "Amadee" (as a good student friend of mine does), she and I agree after much study that his music speaks volumes. The genius that is in Mozart is something that is consistently identified by millions over time. As KenOC wrote so eloquently above "any disagreement has the onus of disproof". (I edited the spelling).

This is the only combination written for the harp and flute in the history of music that deserves the attention it has, it is simply magical, the work of a genius!


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> Sorry, *it just seemed from this thread that the people who say Mozart was a genius are taking it as a fact.* If you agree that it's a *purely subjective opinion* then I'm not sure why there's a need to get shirty with people whose purely subjective opinion is that he wasn't a genius.


Like physicists would consider Einstein and Newton to be geniuses in their field - by the work they did. Anyone who disagrees has his work cut out to prove they weren't. Same with Mozart. From the volume of work he produced the vast majority of musicians would give an assessment from the form of those works (an objective assessment) that he was a genius. We're not getting shirty with those who disagree. We're asking them to prove their point he wasn't a genius. 
NB as the vast majority of informed musical opinion considers Mozart one of the towering geniuses of music it is up to those who disagree to come up with proof he wasn't. So far no-one has come up with an inkling of suggestion as to how Mozart couldn't be a genius.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Any disagreement has the onus of disproval (and good luck with that).


Any disagreement with the argument put forward does have the onus of disproval - but an argument has to be ventured first that is subject to analysis. A mere assertion is not an argument. Anyone who's watched Monty Python knows that!


----------



## Guest

In reading around, looking for references to Saint-Foix's analysis, I came across this, in an essay by Julian Horton

http://upers.kuleuven.be/sites/upers.kuleuven.be/files/page/files/2006_3-6.pdf



> Mozart deploys counterpoint in the 'Jupiter' as one possible element of a total style, which is the sum of topical, expressive, formal and technical devices. No such stylistic universality was available to Bruckner, who rather sought the integration of counterpoint and sonata form with the twofold aim of consolidating the authority of artifice in a highly individuated symphonic composition, and of ramifying super-structural material relationships in an end-directed formal scheme. At the same time, striking parallels arise in the interaction of counterpoint and form. Mozart's separation of stretto and combination, and the distribution of imitative possibilities, contribute to a carefully conceived strategy using contrapuntal categories to articulate formal processes. In Bruckner's hands, this idea is redeployed as a dialectic of contrapuntal statement and contrapuntal development, which is overcome via the agency of stretto and combination, as the means by which fugue 3 clears the way for the recapitulation.


In the same essay, a quote from Saint-Foix:



> 'With a sovereign grace, eloquence and force, the master in his thirty-second year gathers up all the elements his most glorious predecessors have used and reveals to us all that music has achieved up to his time, and what it will do nearly a hundred years later.'


There's something to be said for both commentaries, but I can see why the second might have more immediate appeal!


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> Like physicists would consider Einstein and Newton to be geniuses in their field - by the work they did. Anyone who disagrees has his work cut out to prove they weren't. Same with Mozart. From the volume of work he produced the vast majority of musicians would give an assessment from the form of those works (an objective assessment) that he was a genius. We're not getting shirty with those who disagree. We're asking them to prove their point he wasn't a genius.
> NB as the vast majority of informed musical opinion considers Mozart one of the towering geniuses of music it is up to those who disagree to come up with proof he wasn't. So far no-one has come up with an inkling of suggestion as to how Mozart couldn't be a genius.


I have no disagreement with the fact that "the vast majority of informed musical opinion considers Mozart one of the towering geniuses of music". I love a lot of his music too.

My problem is that I simply don't trust the word "genius" because I genuinely don't know what people _specifically_ mean by it.

Newton and Einstein - they obviously discovered things that nobody else had, so it's easier to see how the word "genius" can be applied to them. But my impression from others calling composers or writers "genius" is that they were _better_ (or, less heplfully, that they were child prodigies or just were faster at producing good work), and this "betterness" just never gets well defined, relying instead on vague words like "perfect" or "beautiful". I mean, for example, how exactly can one melody be objectively "better" than another? _In what way_ is aria A "sublime" and aria B isn't? In short, what's Mozart's (or any composer's) equivalent of "E = mc2"?

So this isn't just about people calling Mozart a genius, this is a broader issue about whether, in music and the arts generally, anyone can ever define words like "genius" or "great" or "perfect" without ultimately having to fall back to "I like it" (or, I suppose, "other people like it").

I suspect that the word "genius" is really being used to mean "he wrote a lot of music that I and a lot of other people really love". Which is nowhere near the definition of "genius" as applied to a physicist. It would be nice if we could come up with a new word for that concept!


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> There's something to be said for both commentaries, but I can see why the second might have more immediate appeal!


Well, the first quote doesn't actually tell us whether Mozart or Bruckner's music is any good!


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> I have no disagreement with the fact that "the vast majority of informed musical opinion considers Mozart one of the towering geniuses of music". I love a lot of his music too.
> 
> *My problem is that I simply don't trust the word "genius" because I genuinely don't know what people specifically mean by it.
> *
> Newton and Einstein - they obviously discovered things that nobody else had, so it's easier to see how the word "genius" can be applied to them. But my impression from others calling composers or writers "genius" is that they were _better_ (or, less heplfully, that they were child prodigies or just were faster at producing good work), and this "betterness" just never gets well defined, relying instead on vague words like "perfect" or "beautiful". I mean, for example, how exactly can one melody be objectively "better" than another? _In what way_ is aria A "sublime" and aria B isn't? In short, what's Mozart's (or any composer's) equivalent of "E = mc2"?
> 
> So this isn't just about people calling Mozart a genius, this is a broader issue about whether, in music and the arts generally, anyone can ever define words like "genius" or "great" or "perfect" without ultimately having to fall back to "I like it" (or, I suppose, "other people like it").
> 
> I suspect that the word "genius" is really being used to mean "he wrote a lot of music that I and a lot of other people really love". Which is nowhere near the definition of "genius" as applied to a physicist. It would be nice if we could come up with a new word for that concept!


Why don't you look it up? Haven't you a dictionary? 
"Genius - 'exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability'."
I think Wolfie qualifies more than most!


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Sorry I just can't see what on earth you are trying to get across in this pointless argument. We marvel at the music! Don't you think that might be the point of music? Or is the point of music looking up how many revisions someone did of the final score?


I stated why I brought up revisions about 30 posts back. The reason you think we are having an argument is likely because you don't remember why.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> If he did know about them - they would not have influenced his assessment.


The only reason I had to make this rejoinder was because you insisted there was a "one in a billion chance" Wagner had heard misinformation about Mozart's working methods. I pointed out that it was almost inevitable that he had heard this. We already both agreed that he would probably not be influenced by this days ago. You don't seem to be able to settle for agreement.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> Why don't you look it up? Haven't you a dictionary?
> "Genius - 'exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability'."
> I think Wolfie qualifies more than most!


To repeat: I don't know what people *specifically* mean by it.

Did Mozart have exceptional intellectual power, or exceptional creative power, or exceptional "other natural ability"? All three? And how, in ways much more precise and enlightening than "he produced a lot of music that a lot of people love", did these exceptional powers or abilities manifest themselves?

I know what the dictionary says about "beautiful", too. Doesn't mean we can all point to the same thing as being the epitome of beauty.

The fundamental point being that we can all bandy about words like "genius", but just assuming that it's self-evident doesn't work. Let me try: _Anton Wranitzky was a genius! Listen to the sublime first movement of his op.11 violin concerto! Nothing more needs to be said._


----------



## Strange Magic

Just some questions from someone passing by--

Is anyone advocating abandoning the use of the word genius as a descriptor in esthetics? Is it incumbent upon those urging a strict, defined use of the word that they provide a specific example and elucidate its properties as a work of genius or its creator as a genius, in ringingly clear terms accessible to the meanest understanding? If so, an example, please.


----------



## ArtMusic

Strange Magic said:


> Just some questions from someone passing by--
> 
> Is anyone advocating abandoning the use of the word genius as a descriptor in esthetics? Is it incumbent upon those urging a strict, defined use of the word that they provide a specific example and elucidate its properties as a work of genius or its creator as a genius, in ringingly clear terms accessible to the meanest understanding? If so, an example, please.


Exactly. This is the clear danger in discussions when semantics in one current point in time, irrespective of centuries of conviction and aesthetics, that seem to take center attention when all those before have embraced Mozart's genius as the simplest and purest form. It's a fact that Mozart's genius will likely continue to impress for centuries to come.


----------



## sosophisticated

I think it's because people are sheep and are afraid of people's reactions if the don't automatically refer to Mozart as a genius. I can admire the craftsmanship of his music, but I don't think he was the absolute zenith of classical music.

Personally if we knew how the composers would have fared at Suduko we would have a greater estimate of their "genius"


----------



## Blancrocher

Btw--thanks to EdwardBast for bringing up Pushkin's short play "Mozart and Salieri," which I hadn't known about. Here it is in case anyone's interested:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mozart_and_Salieri

It seems that it's basically the libretto for Rimsky-Korsakov's opera of the same name:


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> To repeat: I don't know what people *specifically* mean by it.
> 
> Did Mozart have exceptional intellectual power, or exceptional creative power, or exceptional "other natural ability"? All three? And how, in ways much more precise and enlightening than "he produced a lot of music that a lot of people love", did these exceptional powers or abilities manifest themselves?
> 
> I know what the dictionary says about "beautiful", too. Doesn't mean we can all point to the same thing as being the epitome of beauty.
> 
> The fundamental point being that we can all bandy about words like "genius", but just assuming that it's self-evident doesn't work. Let me try: _Anton Wranitzky was a genius! Listen to the sublime first movement of his op.11 violin concerto! Nothing more needs to be said._


Frankly there is no point in continuing this argument when you question the obvious.


----------



## Becca

ArtMusic said:


> It's a fact that Mozart's genius will likely continue to impress for centuries to come.


No it is not, it is a conjecture. It will only be a fact in a few centuries when you can look back on it as having actually happened. You really need to have a clearer grasp of the difference between opinion (even one held by many) and fact.


----------



## PlaySalieri

sosophisticated said:


> I think it's because people are sheep and are afraid of people's reactions if the don't automatically refer to Mozart as a genius. I can admire the craftsmanship of his music, but I don't think he was the absolute zenith of classical music.
> 
> *Personally if we knew how the composers would have fared at Suduko we would have a greater estimate of their "genius"*


no we would just know they are good at that game


----------



## Kieran

Can anyone think of a definition of the word "genius" that _doesn't_ apply to Mozart?


----------



## Nereffid

Strange Magic said:


> Just some questions from someone passing by--
> 
> Is anyone advocating abandoning the use of the word genius as a descriptor in esthetics? Is it incumbent upon those urging a strict, defined use of the word that they provide a specific example and elucidate its properties as a work of genius or its creator as a genius, in ringingly clear terms accessible to the meanest understanding? If so, an example, please.


I don't think it should be abandoned. All I'm looking for is acknowledgement that it's a personal, subjective assessment just like "beautiful", "funny" and the rest, and that there just aren't universal criteria by which one can unquestionably apply such terms. Of course there can be widespread agreement, but not universal. And the widespread agreement is really just a nodding of heads and a "yes, I know what you mean", not anything strictly defined.
I'm OK with people calling Mozart a genius as an aesthetic descriptor. Or Salieri. Or anyone else. My only real objection is to the "of course" that accompanies such claims as applied in certain circumstances. Mozart's (or Salieri's) genius is only self-evident if you already agree (or are, taste-wise, primed to agree) with such an assessment.


----------



## Blancrocher

Kieran said:


> Can anyone think of a definition of the word "genius" that _doesn't_ apply to Mozart?


This is the only one I can find that might meet your criterion, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

"an attendant spirit of a person or place"

Though knowing him he may have pulled this off as well :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Nereffid said:


> I don't think it should be abandoned. All I'm looking for is acknowledgement that it's a personal, subjective assessment just like "beautiful", "funny" and the rest, and that there just aren't universal criteria by which one can unquestionably apply such terms. Of course there can be widespread agreement, but not universal. And the widespread agreement is really just a nodding of heads and a "yes, I know what you mean", not anything strictly defined.
> I'm OK with people calling Mozart a genius as an aesthetic descriptor. Or Salieri. Or anyone else. My only real objection is to the "of course" that accompanies such claims as applied in certain circumstances. *Mozart's (or Salieri's) genius is only self-evident if you already agree (or are, taste-wise, primed to agree) with such an assessment.*


Then the term genius is literally meaningless - if you want to apply circular reasoning to its use. 
Those of us who accept Mozart as a genius (not Salieri) accept it on the basis of evidence! ie - the music we hear.


----------



## poconoron

_Because he accomplished it all by age 35..._..........


----------



## Becca

I have long thought that the term 'genius' is mostly meaningless particularly in the arts. There maybe more justification for it in the sciences but even there, those who we would consider as genius are those who are standing on the shoulders of others and able to see a bit further than most. An example often given is Einstein and I would not argue with it, but he would not have had the clues for his groundbreaking work had he not had the earlier work by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley who are unknown to most. To what extent is that also true in music? Probably a lot, but I'm not going there


----------



## ArtMusic

Becca said:


> No it is not, it is a conjecture. It will only be a fact in a few centuries when you can look back on it as having actually happened. You really need to have a clearer grasp of the difference between opinion (even one held by many) and fact.


What you quoted by me about Mozart's popularity will likely to continue in centuries to come is my opinion, it's an opinion about the future. It is an opinion about the future based on facts, historical facts, to "extrapolate" into the future given Mozart's genius.


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> I have long thought that the term 'genius' is mostly meaningless particularly in the arts. There maybe more justification for it in the sciences but even there, those who we would consider as genius are those who are standing on the shoulders of others and able to see a bit further than most. An example often given is Einstein and I would not argue with it, but he would not have had the clues for his groundbreaking work had he not had the earlier work by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley who are unknown to most. To what extent is that also true in music? Probably a lot, but I'm not going there


This is true of the vast majority of scientific advances. For example the discovery of the. Structure of DNA by Watson and Crick was made possible by the brilliant X-ray diffraction work by Rosalind Franklin. The term genius is not in the least inappropriate used in the arts to describe a talent like Mozart's. If he wasn't a genius who is?


----------



## Truckload

Personally I admire Mozart tremendously, but he is not my favorite composer for listening. No big deal. My favorite music is the music of the late romantic. But I can appreciate the technical mastery and genius of Mozart the composer. When I look carefully at his music, I am always impressed by his amazing ability with voice leading, harmony and melody. 

If we were to do a survey of every musicologist in the western world, I would be shocked if Mozart were not in the top 3 most frequently praised composers. He is not in my personal favorite top 3, but I can appreciate why others would see him thus.


----------



## PlaySalieri

This probably does not mean much but

http://www.ranker.com/list/greatest-minds-of-all-time/walter-graves

based on votes cast by those who visit the site.

There are other ranking sites - but this is the only one based on thousands of opinions.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Truckload said:


> Personally I admire Mozart tremendously, but he is not my favorite composer for listening. No big deal. My favorite music is the music of the late romantic. But I can appreciate the technical mastery and genius of Mozart the composer. When I look carefully at his music, I am always impressed by his amazing ability with voice leading, harmony and melody.
> 
> If we were to do a survey of every musicologist in the western world, I would be shocked if Mozart were not in the top 3 most frequently praised composers. He is not in my personal favorite top 3, but I can appreciate why others would see him thus.


That is a well stated and balanced point of view.
probably represents how I feel about Debussy - for example - dont tend to listen to him much - but admit he is a top rank composer.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> *This probably does not mean much* but
> 
> http://www.ranker.com/list/greatest-minds-of-all-time/walter-graves
> 
> based on votes cast by those who visit the site.
> 
> There are other ranking sites - but this is the only one based on thousands of opinions.


Correct, it does not.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

poconoron said:


> _Because he accomplished it all by age 35..._..........


'precocious' is not synonymous with 'genius' .... no matter how big a font you use

Nor is 'someone who is very good at something' a satisfactory definition of 'genius' (as someone earlier in the thread tried to suggest).

And to set the record straight (again) I love Mozart's music and I am happy to consider him a genius, but those who ask for reasons 'why it is so' have been asking a reasonable question that has not merited the some of the acerbic responses posted on this thread by a number of members


----------



## PlaySalieri

Headphone Hermit said:


> 'precocious' is not synonymous with 'genius' .... no matter how big a font you use
> 
> Nor is 'someone who is very good at something' a satisfactory definition of 'genius' (as someone earlier in the thread tried to suggest).
> 
> And to set the record straight (again) I love Mozart's music and I am happy to consider him a genius, but those who ask for reasons 'why it is so' have been asking a reasonable question that has not merited the some of the acerbic responses posted on this thread by a number of members


well if you consider him a genius - as you say - perhaps YOU can say why? and I would say if you cant answer that question - how is it you consider him a genius?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> Correct, it does not.


except that Mozart has double the number of votes to the next composer - Beethoven. which backs the view that - in the popular imagination - Mozart is music's greatest genius.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I'm one of those who gladly call Mozart a genius (I do think some of the semantic nitpicking is a bit much). I think in science or math, the criteria for "genius" is different than it is in the field of art. And that is OK. Furthermore, all terms don't mean the exact same thing across all fields, and once again, that is OK. Think of the terms "logic" and "elegant", these terms take on different connotations in math and science.

I think that in order to assign the "genius" label to someone, you must take the term down a few notches, so to speak. Take away some of its importance. Realize that it's not a term that carries any meaningful weight. It will be used in biographies, and on online forums, and in articles, and so forth. Once you realize that calling Mozart a genius doesn't really mean much, his music remains the same, without or without the label. I then ask myself, what's the harm?



stomanek said:


> except that Mozart has double the number of votes to the next composer - Beethoven. which backs the view that - in the popular imagination - Mozart is music's greatest genius.


What I have a problem with is _this_ mentality that stomanek and a few others have zealously taken on, that Mozart is the end all be all of musical geniuses, "Mozart is music's greatest genius". Just read this thread and the "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart" thread if you need further proof. It's recently been compared to religious fanaticism and I can see why.

EdwardBast and I have both said that he's a genius, and a genius of the first order, but that's not good enough. Mozart just absolutely must be the end all be all, the numero uno, the musical genius of geniuses. It's tiring.


----------



## Becca

ArtMusic said:


> What you quoted by me about Mozart's popularity will likely to continue in centuries to come is my opinion, it's an opinion about the future. It is an opinion about the future based on facts, historical facts, to "extrapolate" into the future given Mozart's genius.


Ahh, extrapolation, you may be correct, we will never know but to quote Mark Twain...

_"In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
_


----------



## Headphone Hermit

stomanek said:


> well if you consider him a genius - as you say - perhaps YOU can say why? and I would say if you cant answer that question - how is it you consider him a genius?


I can only say that I can accept the opinion that Mozart was a genius ... and it is my *subjective* opinion based upon the *opinions* of others.

There are people better qualified and experienced in Mozart's music than I am who might reasonably be expected to provide elaboration and exploration.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

stomanek said:


> Mozart has double the number of votes to the next composer - Beethoven. which backs the view that - in the popular imagination - Mozart is music's greatest genius.


No, it doesn't. It backs the view that in the popular imagination, Mozart's music is more popular than that of Beethoven


----------



## ArtMusic

I'm talking about Wolfy, not sure how Mississippi came up to this (a lovely place nonetheless, I like Mississippi  )

The state's name reminded me of the great opera, a work of genius, by the fourteen year old (14!), _Mitridate, re di Ponto_. I would encourage anyone who have not listened to this opera to give it a listen. It is yet another proof of the genius of Mozart, at 14.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Headphone Hermit said:


> No, it doesn't. It backs the view that in the popular imagination, Mozart's music is more popular than that of Beethoven


Wrong - the title of the poll is

"The Greatest Minds of All Time"

so work it out for yourself.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> Wrong - the title of the poll is
> 
> "The Greatest Minds of All Time"
> 
> so work it out for yourself.


Are you pulling our legs?


----------



## Truckload

arpeggio said:


> Of course Mozart was a genius. So what? He was a genius at manipulating the tools he was working with. Mozart and Haydn were definitely the greatest composers of their generation. That is what I was taught in music history class.
> 
> For me this is an issue concerning programming. Since Mozart was a genius does that mean that we should not program the music of Stamitz, Salieri and other contemporaries who maybe were not geniuses?
> 
> I have recently discovered a Baroque composer who is quite good: Thomas Augustine Arne. I have been listening to his Overtures and was so impressed that I secured a copy of some of his other works.
> 
> I do not think that the likes of Stamitz, Arne, Raff and many others should wallow in obscurity along with Webern.
> 
> One does not have to be a genius to compose great music.


Nicely said. This is one great benefit we have today with the internet. It makes it possible to explore the music of many composers who otherwise might be invisible. And in my opinion simple variety adds spice to my enjoyment of classical music. For example you mentioned Raff. I have been enjoying listening to some of his compositions lately.

Your last sentence is especially thought provoking. Can a non-genius write great music? My first reaction was, of course they can. But then I started thinking, well maybe they are not a genius in anything else, but only a genius in writing great music. I am confused about this issue.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> This is true of the vast majority of scientific advances. For example the discovery of the. Structure of DNA by Watson and Crick was made possible by the brilliant X-ray diffraction work by Rosalind Franklin. The term genius is not in the least inappropriate used in the arts to describe a talent like Mozart's. If he wasn't a genius who is?


Why refer to anyone as a genius? It's just a tag that folks give to some other folks - not meaningful at all.

As an example, my favorite composer is Bach and I listen to his music every day. Maybe he was a genius, maybe not depending on who is talking. It doesn't really make any difference. I'm going to keep listening to Bach every day based on my standards and preferences.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> I'm one of those who gladly call Mozart a genius (I do think some of the semantic nitpicking is a bit much). I think in science or math, the criteria for "genius" is different than it is in the field of art. And that is OK. Furthermore, all terms don't mean the exact same thing across all fields, and once again, that is OK. Think of the terms "logic" and "elegant", these terms take on different connotations in math and science.
> 
> I think that in order to assign the "genius" label to someone, you must take the term down a few notches, so to speak. Take away some of its importance. Realize that it's not a term that carries any meaningful weight. It will be used in biographies, and on online forums, and in articles, and so forth. Once you realize that calling Mozart a genius doesn't really mean much, his music remains the same, without or without the label. I then ask myself, what's the harm?
> 
> What I have a problem with is _this_ mentality that stomanek and a few others have zealously taken on, that Mozart is the end all be all of musical geniuses, "Mozart is music's greatest genius". Just read this thread and the "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart" thread if you need further proof. It's recently been compared to religious fanaticism and I can see why.
> 
> EdwardBast and I have both said that he's a genius, and a genius of the first order, but that's not good enough. Mozart just absolutely must be the end all be all, the numero uno, the musical genius of geniuses. It's tiring.


and does it say more about the music of Mozart? or his "followers" - maybe a subject of study?

there's a lot of resistance to Mozart on this forum - Mozart haters are indeed here with us - not necessarily on this thread - and perhaps that explains the zeal with which we defend our hero


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> and does it say more about the music of Mozart? or his "followers" - maybe a subject of study?
> 
> there's a lot of resistance to Mozart on this forum - Mozart haters are indeed here with us - not necessarily on this thread - and perhaps that explains the zeal with which we defend our hero


It says everything about the people who have been addressed, it says nothing about Mozart whatsoever, he's been dead for over 220 years. I never knew the guy.

There is not a lot of resistance to Mozart on this forum. I'll repeat it again, multiple people have stated that Mozart was a genius, that they enjoy his music, etc. Yet you are not OK with that, he must be proclaimed the genius of all geniuses in music. It is absurd. I'm not even sure why I keep arguing with you. You say that Mozart gets hate on this forum, let me remind everyone that you claimed that Mozart's music was being "disparaged" because someone used the phrase "hands down" when proclaiming that Beethoven and Bach beat Mozart's solo piano music.

If there is one composer who is nearly universally loved on this forum, it's Bach. After that, it's Mozart.



stomanek said:


> I wish I had time to go back and quote - but more than one person said that bach and beet beat M hands down for solo k/b. I would also place M third - though hands down is going too far. it's close





Headphone Hermit said:


> but this is not 'disparaging' Mozart's solo keyboard works
> 
> there is a very big difference between expressing preference for Bach or Beethoven and disparaging Mozart.
> 
> I hope that you are able to understand that people can have a different preference to yours and that this doesn not mean that your favourite is 'disparaged'.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> It says everything about the people who have been addressed, it says nothing about Mozart whatsoever, he's been dead for over 220 years. I never knew the guy.
> 
> There is not a lot of resistance to Mozart on this forum. I'll repeat it again, multiple people have stated that Mozart is a genius, that they enjoy his music, etc. Yet you are not OK with that, he must be proclaimed the genius of all geniuses in music. It is absurd. I'm not even sure why I keep arguing with you. You say that Mozart gets hate on this forum, let me remind everyone that you claimed that Mozart's music was being "disparaged" because someone used the phrase "hands down" when proclaiming that Beethoven and Bach beat Mozart's solo piano music.


They are just a bit too subtle for you to notice.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> They are just a bit too subtle for you to notice.


Ah yes, that must be it. Thank you.

And I'll not point out the irony in your post, I don't want an infraction.

I realize this could be insulting, but not any more than saying something is "too subtle for me to notice."


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> It says everything about the people who have been addressed, it says nothing about Mozart whatsoever, he's been dead for over 220 years. I never knew the guy.
> 
> There is not a lot of resistance to Mozart on this forum. I'll repeat it again, multiple people have stated that Mozart was a genius, that they enjoy his music, etc. *Yet you are not OK with that, he must be proclaimed the genius of all geniuses in music.* It is absurd. I'm not even sure why I keep arguing with you. You say that Mozart gets hate on this forum, let me remind everyone that you claimed that Mozart's music was being "disparaged" because someone used the phrase "hands down" when proclaiming that Beethoven and Bach beat Mozart's solo piano music.
> 
> If there is one composer who is nearly universally loved on this forum, it's Bach. After that, it's Mozart.


You have no justification for that comment - I never would insist such a thing - your words not mine. 
I think M is the greatest of composers and I have backed up that view on another thread. What I have tried to do on this thread is support the widely held view that M deserves the tag genius and I have tried to provide evidence. I have done my best to counter arguments against this position mainly from those who stubbornly ask for proof of the connection between Moart's music and the word genius - nobody ever asks for this proof in connection with Beethoven or Bach.
The majority of the forum is pro- Mozart as they are pro any great composer - but there is an anti-Mozart element - you just have not noticed what I have over the years.


----------



## jdec

Headphone Hermit said:


> No, it doesn't. It backs the view that in the popular imagination, Mozart's music is more popular than that of Beethoven


The poll is about the "greatest" minds of all time, not about the "most popular" minds of all time.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> You have no justification for that comment - I never would insist such a thing - your words not mine.
> *I think M is the greatest of composers and I have backed up that view on another thread*. What I have tried to do on this thread is support the widely held view that M deserves the tag genius and I have tried to provide evidence. I have done my best to counter arguments against this position mainly from those *who stubbornly ask for proof of the connection between Moart's music and the word genius - nobody ever asks for this proof in connection with Beethoven or Bach.*
> *The majority of the forum is pro- Mozart as they are pro any great composer - but there is an anti-Mozart element - you just have not noticed what I have over the years.*


I assure you that you have not backed up that view (that he is "the greatest of composers"). Did you not just write that I have no justification for my comment? And then you say this _again_? That Mozart is the "greatest of composers". :lol:

You must have skipped over the numerous posts that said that you can insert any great composer's name for Mozart, the question of genius is being discussed, NOT the quality of Mozart's music. It was brought up numerous times. You ignored those posts. Please reread MacLeod's posts again.

There is anti-_every_ composer on this forum. There are those who feel the need to diminish Beethoven in every thread possible, there are those who continually wish to bring Wagner down, the list goes on and on and on and on and on... Saying that there is an anti-Mozart element doesn't mean anything. You can insert any composer's name and it'll still be true. There is not a large anti-Mozart element, that's what matters. Wars have been declared over modern/contemporary music and Wagner's music on this thread! lol, believe me, nobody is fighting over Mozart, his music and his reputation are secure.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

jdec said:


> The poll is about the "greatest" minds of all time, not about the "most popular" minds of all time.


What he is saying is that the results say nothing more than that, that all it says is that Mozart's music is more popular. He's refuting the validity of this poll. Are you really placing this much importance on a website called "Ranker' where people get to indiscriminately click thumbs down or thumbs up without a second thought? Why are we discussing this? Why is this a thing?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> I assure you that you have not backed up that view (that he is "the greatest of composers"). Did you not just write that I have no justification for my comment? And then you say this _again_? That Mozart is the "greatest of composers". :lol:
> 
> You must have skipped over the numerous posts that said that you can insert any great composer's name for Mozart, the question of genius is being discussed, NOT the quality of Mozart's music. It was brought up numerous times. You ignored those posts. Please reread MacLeod's posts again.
> 
> There is anti-_every_ composer on this forum. There are those who feel the need to diminish Beethoven in every thread possible, there are those who continually wish to bring Wagner down, the list goes on and on and on and on and on... Saying that there is an anti-Mozart element doesn't mean anything. You can insert any composer's name and it'll still be true. There is not a large anti-Mozart element, that's what matters. Wars have been declared over modern/contemporary music and Wagner's music on this thread! lol, believe me, nobody is fighting over Mozart, his music and his reputation are secure.


Most users on this forum have an idea about who is the greatest composer - I am no different - and I do not insist others share my view - which is what your post wrongly implies.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

.................................


----------



## jdec

DiesIraeCX said:


> What he is saying is that the results say nothing more than that, that all it says is that Mozart's music is more popular.


The first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony is the most popular piece of classical music ever.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

jdec said:


> The first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony is the most popular piece of classical music ever.


Forgetting for a second that this doesn't prove any point.

Some would say it's Beethoven's Ode to Joy melody, some would say it's Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, others would say it's Mendelssohn's Wedding March, others would say it's Vivaldi's Spring from the Four Seasons, but I digress... What are you trying to say? That Beethoven's Fifth has an incredibly popular theme, and somehow Beethoven was _still_ voted after Mozart on an online poll called "Ranker"? 

Beethoven and Mozart are household names, which is why they were voted higher on that meaningless list than Bach, who less people are familiar with.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

http://www.ranker.com/list/greatest-minds-of-all-time/walter-graves

Beethoven was voted in TWICE.

At #18 and #45. "Ludwig van Beethoven" at 18, and just "Beethoven" at 45, with Jesus of Nazareth coming in 4 spots behind Beethoven, at #49.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I bet this online list is used in all the scholarly articles concerning genius, but if one were to cite Beethoven, which Beethoven would they use, #18 or #45?


----------



## jdec

DiesIraeCX said:


> Beethoven and Mozart are household names, which is why they were voted higher on that meaningless list than Bach, who less people are familiar with.


Wrong. Bach is voted higher than Beethoven in that rank. See? it is not about "popularity".


----------



## DiesIraeCX

jdec said:


> Wrong. Bach is voted higher than Beethoven in that rank. See? it is not about "popularity".


Ah, darn, you're right. I concede, then. The list is extremely meaningful after all.


----------



## jdec

__________________


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Since now we know that ranker.com is a reputable source. Here's this list, "the best classical composers". Enjoy.

Here's part of the description: "_These top classical composers have written some of the most relaxing music, the most inspirational music, and the most beautiful music in the world._"

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/my-favorite-classical-composers-of-all-time

1. Beethoven
2. Bach
3. Mozart
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Chopin
6. Vivaldi


----------



## jdec

A. Einstein vs. ranker.com


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


Einstein wins, because he is EINSTEIN.


----------



## Mahlerian

jdec said:


> A. Einstein vs. ranker.com
> 
> "Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed."
> ~ Albert Einstein
> 
> Einstein wins, because he is EINSTEIN.


Thank you for demonstrating the appeal to irrelevant authority so well.

Of course, I wouldn't take Ranker.com as an authority either. On a personal level, I consider Mozart among the greatest composers; I don't need to cite others' opinions to validate that.


----------



## jdec

Mahlerian said:


> Thank you for demonstrating the appeal to irrelevant authority so well.
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't take Ranker.com as an authority either. On a personal level, I consider Mozart among the greatest composers; I don't need to cite others' opinions to validate that.


You seem to have little sense of humor . Ok, joking aside, then lets go back to this one, to not fall under the appeal to irrelevant authority...

"The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts."
~ Richard Wagner


----------



## Guest

The excitement continued unabated in my absence I see!



DiesIraeCX said:


> (I do think some of the semantic nitpicking is a bit much).


There hasn't actually been any, that I can recall.



stomanek said:


> I have done my best to counter arguments against this position mainly from those who stubbornly ask for proof of the connection between Moart's music and the word genius - nobody ever asks for this proof in connection with Beethoven or Bach.


Countering an argument that asks for proof rather suggests that you are of the opinion that an 'argument' (for or against anything) needs nothing more than an assertion or a contradiction. As for asking for 'proof' that Beethoven is a genius, your argument says that none need be provided besides pointing to his music. That wouldn't 'satisfy' me either.

Let's try to take this principle a little further. Here's a picture...

View attachment 81152


I suspect, though I wouldn't like to assert, that we all know what this is a picture of. We can all point to it and give it a name. We might also be able to come up with several other relevant terms - 'mammal', 'big cat' - as well as words to describe the attributes that help define it - 'striped', 'orangey-brown' etc. In doing so, we are drawing on our common understanding of the attributes that make the use of 'tiger' more appropriate than 'flamingo', despite the fact that it can clearly fly, something evidently in common with birds.

It is the _application _of the term 'tiger' to _a collection of attributes_ that we agree belong to this particular species of animal that is important here. No-one (?) is going to say that it isn't a picture of a tiger, but if we needed to explain what a tiger is, merely pointing to it is insufficient. That might satisfy a child who asks for the label on first witnessing one, but over time, even the child will want to be able to distinguish a tiger from a lion from a leopard from a zebra from a flamingo. The child will acquire an understanding of the various distinguishing attributes.

If this is labouring a point, then so be it. But if those who assert not just that Mozart wrote an awful lot of music before he died early (by the age of 35, apparently); that it is almost universally liked (by a class of people who tend to like that kind of music); and that those who know about such things agree that it is very intricate and must have required a clever brain to compose; but that the term 'genius' is also applicable to him, they ought to be happy to offer some of the specific attributes to which they apply the term. Few have quibbled, semantically or otherwise, about the _meaning _of the word 'genius', but a number have asked about the application of the word and what, in Mozart's case, makes the word relevant and true.


----------



## DaveM

Oh for Heaven's sakes, we get your point. Move on.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Oh for Heaven's sakes, we get your point. Move on.


Plainly, you don't. Move on.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mahlerian said:


> Thank you for demonstrating the appeal to irrelevant authority so well.
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't take Ranker.com as an authority either. On a personal level, I consider Mozart among the greatest composers;* I don't need to cite others' opinions to validate that.*


there is at least one poster who said he relies on the opinions of those who know better than him.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Headphone Hermit said:


> I can only say that I can accept the opinion that Mozart was a genius ... *and it is my subjective opinion based upon the opinions of others.
> *
> There are people better qualified and experienced in Mozart's music than I am who might reasonably be expected to provide elaboration and exploration.


yes - it was thi poster - I have no problem with it of course but not everyone relies on their own judgement.

I dont understand einstein - but accept science's view he was a genius for what that is worth


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> The excitement continued unabated in my absence I see!
> 
> There hasn't actually been any, that I can recall.
> 
> Countering an argument that asks for proof rather suggests that you are of the opinion that an 'argument' (for or against anything) needs nothing more than an assertion or a contradiction. As for asking for 'proof' that Beethoven is a genius, your argument says that none need be provided besides pointing to his music. That wouldn't 'satisfy' me either.
> 
> Let's try to take this principle a little further. Here's a picture...
> 
> View attachment 81152
> 
> 
> I suspect, though I wouldn't like to assert, that we all know what this is a picture of. We can all point to it and give it a name. We might also be able to come up with several other relevant terms - 'mammal', 'big cat' - as well as words to describe the attributes that help define it - 'striped', 'orangey-brown' etc. In doing so, we are drawing on our common understanding of the attributes that make the use of 'tiger' more appropriate than 'flamingo', despite the fact that it can clearly fly, something evidently in common with birds.
> 
> It is the _application _of the term 'tiger' to _a collection of attributes_ that we agree belong to this particular species of animal that is important here. No-one (?) is going to say that it isn't a picture of a tiger, but if we needed to explain what a tiger is, merely pointing to it is insufficient. That might satisfy a child who asks for the label on first witnessing one, but over time, even the child will want to be able to distinguish a tiger from a lion from a leopard from a zebra from a flamingo. The child will acquire an understanding of the various distinguishing attributes.
> 
> If this is labouring a point, then so be it. But if those who assert not just that Mozart wrote an awful lot of music before he died early (by the age of 35, apparently); that it is almost universally liked (by a class of people who tend to like that kind of music); and that those who know about such things agree that it is very intricate and must have required a clever brain to compose; but that the term 'genius' is also applicable to him, they ought to be happy to offer some of the specific attributes to which they apply the term. Few have quibbled, semantically or otherwise, about the _meaning _of the word 'genius', but a number have asked about the application of the word and what, in Mozart's case, makes the word relevant and true.


That's all fair enough - but in that case - each use of the word "genius" must be called into question and justified on the grounds you have spelled out - or accepted as having no real meaning beyond an indication of one's appreciation of a particular facility of an artist/scientist.
To many - George Best was a genius - yet he failed his 0 level maths and couldnt play a note of music. Yet on the basis of your argument - claims that Best was a genius are no more or less justifiable than that Mozart was a genius.


----------



## Blancrocher

stomanek said:


> yes - it was thi poster - I have no problem with it of course but not everyone relies on their own judgement.
> 
> I dont understand einstein - but accept science's view he was a genius for what that is worth


I think Alfred Einstein was a pretty good historian of music, though "genius" might be going a bit far. His assessment of Mozart's achievement seems to me about right, in any case.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> To many - George Best was a genius - yet he failed his 0 level maths and couldnt play a note of music. Yet on the basis of your argument - claims that Best was a genius are no more or less justifiable than that Mozart was a genius.


As it happens, I've just been watching _Match of the Day_, and it got me thinking about this thread. When the football pundit wants to make a claim about some player's quality, he's got a selection of clips to illustrate his point. I think that's really all we're asking for here. For example, the pundit can demonstrate how a team's back four kept position through the game, or back up a claim about a player's hard work by displaying a graphic showing his number of touches, and so on. In music of course we can do something similar - demonstrate the complexity of a fugue, show how an unexpected modulation cleverly defies the rules - but there's an additional complication, which is that ultimately the football analysis can be reduced to statistics - goals scored, passes made, kilometres run - but music can't. We can't measure the beauty of a melody, or produce a ranked table of rhythmic motifs. "Success" for a football team is to win the match, or perhaps to draw against a much better team; the point being there's a defined outcome. But there's no equivalent in music - how does one define the "success" of a composition without ultimately coming down to intangibles, such as whether the listeners are moved. And moreover, given that by "music" we mean not just Mozart but Machaut, Xenakis, and everyone else, what might qualify as "success" becomes even more nebulous.


----------



## Strange Magic

Blancrocher said:


> I think Alfred Einstein was a pretty good historian of music, though "genius" might be going a bit far. His assessment of Mozart's achievement seems to me about right, in any case.


Nice one! :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Nereffid said:


> As it happens, I've just been watching _Match of the Day_, and it got me thinking about this thread. When the football pundit wants to make a claim about some player's quality, he's got a selection of clips to illustrate his point. I think that's really all we're asking for here. For example, the pundit can demonstrate how a team's back four kept position through the game, or back up a claim about a player's hard work by displaying a graphic showing his number of touches, and so on. In music of course we can do something similar - demonstrate the complexity of a fugue, show how an unexpected modulation cleverly defies the rules - but there's an additional complication, which is that ultimately the football analysis can be reduced to statistics - goals scored, passes made, kilometres run - but music can't. We can't measure the beauty of a melody, or produce a ranked table of rhythmic motifs. "Success" for a football team is to win the match, or perhaps to draw against a much better team; the point being there's a defined outcome. But there's no equivalent in music - how does one define the "success" of a composition without ultimately coming down to intangibles, such as whether the listeners are moved. And moreover, given that by "music" we mean not just Mozart but Machaut, Xenakis, and everyone else, what might qualify as "success" becomes even more nebulous.


There have been many fine analyses of the finale of mozarts sy no 41 - the complexity of it etc - 5 theme fugal treatment. I have 10 pages on it by Saint Fox - shall I send it to you by email?


----------



## DavidA

Blancrocher said:


> I think Alfred Einstein was a pretty good historian of music, though "genius" might be going a bit far. His assessment of Mozart's achievement seems to me about right, in any case.


You don't need to be a genius to recognise one!


----------



## Wood

Is Mozart the greatest genius?

How many angels fit on a pin head?


----------



## Kieran

Soon it shall be time again to exhume this :devil:


----------



## sosophisticated

I actually listen to a lot of Mozart and the reason for that I think is that his music is not overly intimidating. It always sounds effortless and highly polished. _Pleasing _ Putting on some Beethoven or JS Bach on the other hand can be a bit more of a challenge and a few times I have switched the music off because I felt I wasn't in the mood. The main reason I can't objectively or subjectively put Mozart at the #1 slot is that I feel few of his works have much emotional resonance in them. Compare Mozarts' piano sonata output to Beethovens and the difference is obvious and immediate. Mozart dipped his toes in the world of piano music, Beethoven dove straight in. (Okay the image of Beethoven in swimming trunks is pretty silly, but you get the idea)

I happen to think that _objectively_ he's top 3 material, but he's not in my personal top 3 composers.


----------



## poconoron

sosophisticated said:


> Compare Mozarts' piano sonata output to Beethovens and the difference is obvious and immediate. Mozart dipped his toes in the world of piano music, Beethoven dove straight in. (Okay the image of Beethoven in swimming trunks is pretty silly, but you get the idea)
> 
> I happen to think that _objectively_ he's top 3 material, but he's not in my personal top 3 composers.


On the other hand, in the world of opera (a much more difficult genre to master than solo piano) it is Mozart who is leaps and bounds supreme over Beethoven. But I fully understand that opera and it's complexities do not suit alot of people here on TC.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> That's all fair enough - but in that case - each use of the word "genius" must be called into question and justified on the grounds you have spelled out - or accepted as having no real meaning beyond an indication of one's appreciation of a particular facility of an artist/scientist.
> To many - George Best was a genius - yet he failed his 0 level maths and couldnt play a note of music. Yet on the basis of your argument - claims that Best was a genius are no more or less justifiable than that Mozart was a genius.


Yes, of course, that would be right. Otherwise all we have to do is name anyone we choose, 'genius' and without any obligation to justify the application of the term to the specific attributes of the music.


----------



## ArtMusic

sosophisticated said:


> I actually listen to a lot of Mozart and the reason for that I think is that his music is not overly intimidating. It always sounds effortless and highly polished. _Pleasing _ Putting on some Beethoven or JS Bach on the other hand can be a bit more of a challenge and a few times I have switched the music off because I felt I wasn't in the mood. The main reason I can't objectively or subjectively put Mozart at the #1 slot is that I feel few of his works have much emotional resonance in them. Compare Mozarts' piano sonata output to Beethovens and the difference is obvious and immediate. Mozart dipped his toes in the world of piano music, Beethoven dove straight in. (Okay the image of Beethoven in swimming trunks is pretty silly, but you get the idea)
> 
> I happen to think that _objectively_ he's top 3 material, but he's not in my personal top 3 composers.


I think that would be a near universal fact that many listeners would consider WAM to be objectively among the top three. I personally have not met anyone who considers otherwise in the real world who have an adequate knowledge and listening experience of classical music. That's the consistency that never fails. Often I very simply introduce new listeners to Mozart favorites and their conclusion is the same. That's the effect a true genius' work has on people.


----------



## PlaySalieri

sosophisticated said:


> I actually listen to a lot of Mozart and the reason for that I think is that his music is not overly intimidating. It always sounds effortless and highly polished. _Pleasing _ Putting on some Beethoven or JS Bach on the other hand can be a bit more of a challenge and a few times I have switched the music off because I felt I wasn't in the mood. *The main reason I can't objectively or subjectively put Mozart at the #1 slot is that I feel few of his works have much emotional resonance in them.* Compare Mozarts' piano sonata output to Beethovens and the difference is obvious and immediate. Mozart dipped his toes in the world of piano music, Beethoven dove straight in. (Okay the image of Beethoven in swimming trunks is pretty silly, but you get the idea)
> 
> I happen to think that _objectively_ he's top 3 material, but he's not in my personal top 3 composers.


A common view - but not one that resonates with me at all - and many others who are tuned into mozart. It's funny but a piano professor at the royal academy of music - in a masterclass comparing haydn with mozart said - haydn is all intellect - and mozart is all emotion. I dont think he meant that in the extreme - but Mozart's music can be instensley emotion - for starters - have a listen to the 2nd movt of the clarinet concerto - or 2nd mvt of pc 23, of the 2nd mvts of any of the violin concertos - sinfonia concertante. Then come back to me and tell me M is not emotional. In fact most of his middle mvts are deeply personal statements of woe or struggle - just as many of his 1st mvts are like the happiness one feels on a bright summer's morning. If I didnt get that emotion from my listening I wouldnt bother - it's the principal reason I listen to Mozart. That is not to diminish other composers - but what you say just does not apply in my case and I am sorry you dont feel it.


----------



## Avey

ArtMusic said:


> I think that would be a near universal fact that many listeners would consider WAM to be objectively among the top three.


This has got to be the most loaded statement yet. And not of substance, but of lexical semantics. The brainwaves are still tripping over each other trying to work this one out. You get my thumbs up.


----------



## Fugue Meister

ArtMusic said:


> I think that would be a near universal fact that many listeners would consider WAM to be objectively among the top three. I personally have not met anyone who considers otherwise in the real world who have an adequate knowledge and listening experience of classical music. That's the consistency that never fails. Often I very simply introduce new listeners to Mozart favorites and their conclusion is the same. That's the effect a true genius' work has on people.


Prove it, please stop giving examples from your personal experience as they are tainted by bias. I love it how you try to make "universal fact" fly with the inclusion of "near" or just picturing you going round to the uninitiated forcing a Mozart sampler CD on them and badgering them with "isn't this genius?, isn't this just the finest music around?", it's no small wonder how you claim to find the same conclusion with everybody, they most likely are just telling you what you want to hear because (as others here are becoming to realize) there is no arguing with a someone such as yourself. Someone who has yet to provide a single shred of proof to any of the hearsay (the above quote a perfect example of this) other than your own personal opinion which has no validity unless you can also prove yourself to be a Mozart scholar with proper credentials.

So once again I ask you for proof that Mozart is genius of the caliber you claim, so genius every person who merely listens to a piece of Mozart will proclaim him to be the God you feel he is. Prove it or stop inserting polysemous assertions which is the only consistency that never fails here.

I'm beginning to think your sullying Mozart's considerable affect on me knowing that such music also has the phenomenon of creating "fans" of your particular variance.


----------



## trazom

Fugue Meister said:


> I'm beginning to think your sullying Mozart's considerable affect on me knowing that such music also has the phenomenon of creating "fans" of your particular variance.


You make it sound as though much of your enjoyment of a composer's work doesn't come from the music but the class of listeners you like to associate with.


----------



## Fugue Meister

trazom said:


> You make it sound as though much of your enjoyment of a composer's work doesn't come from the music but the class of listeners you like to associate with.


Not typically but in this case I may be making an exception. :devil: Really I'm just trying to give this person something to think about, something like your rubbing other Mozart lovers the wrong way..


----------



## bharbeke

Mozart was a prolific composer, and a very high percentage of his total output is well-regarded by the classical audience. Many of his pieces have been excerpted and appreciated in various media by the public at large. He has never fallen out of favor with the general or specifically classical audience to date. He composed enduring works in quite a few different classical genres.

All of that might be enough to classify a composer as a genius. In addition, though, my experience is that a lot of his music is joyful or fun. His Rondo in D (K 485) is one recent example I have heard. Mozart can do other things, but lighthearted music is one of his great composing strengths.


----------



## Rapide

Fugue Meister said:


> Prove it, please stop giving examples from your personal experience as they are tainted by bias. I love it how you try to make "universal fact" fly with the inclusion of "near" or just picturing you going round to the uninitiated forcing a Mozart sampler CD on them and badgering them with "isn't this genius?, isn't this just the finest music around?", it's no small wonder how you claim to find the same conclusion with everybody, they most likely are just telling you what you want to hear because (as others here are becoming to realize) there is no arguing with a someone such as yourself. Someone who has yet to provide a single shred of proof to any of the hearsay (the above quote a perfect example of this) other than your own personal opinion which has no validity unless you can also prove yourself to be a Mozart scholar with proper credentials.
> 
> So once again I ask you for proof that Mozart is genius of the caliber you claim, so genius every person who merely listens to a piece of Mozart will proclaim him to be the God you feel he is. Prove it or stop inserting polysemous assertions which is the only consistency that never fails here.
> 
> I'm beginning to think your sullying Mozart's considerable affect on me knowing that such music also has the phenomenon of creating "fans" of your particular variance.


Why would anyone not think Mozart was a genius? Why would anyone require proof? Is it really that difficult? Equally why would anyone require proof that Antonio Salieri was not a genius?


----------



## DaveM

Rapide said:


> Why would anyone not think Mozart was a genius? Why would anyone require proof? Is it really that difficult? Equally why would anyone require proof that Antonio Salieri was not a genius?


What is unfortunate is that much of this thread has moved well beyond what was the apparent intention of the OP. Which had to do with why is Mozart often referred to as a genius more than other popular composers? Nowhere in that OP was there anything to do with _'prove that Mozart was a genius with perfect objectivity_'.

A few posters have set themselves up as the arbiters as to what parameter(s) (particularly objective proof) must be present in any post where Mozart is proclaimed to be a genius as if this a university course and there will be an exam (one poster made sure we knew he/she had taught university).

My opinion is that Mozart was a genius. I say that while being aware of several things:
1. The measurement of intelligence is an ongoing challenge with a lot of controversy by experts over what factors should be measured and how they should be measured.
2. There is proof that there are (and has been) individuals who have an apparent high intellectual level and exceptional talent in certain areas and who excel in those areas whether in the arts or sciences. Advances in brain mapping have shown particular characteristics in the brains in some individuals with such exceptional intelligence and/or memory.
3. Success in life and various vocations depends on a number of things; high intelligence may or may not be one of those things.
4. The English definition of 'genius' is fairly specific, but since it (to some extent) depends on our still limited understanding of the elements of high intelligence, it is a term that is vulnerable to disagreement.

However, even with some of the limitations implied in the above, IMO, we still have enough information to suggest that a composer who accomplished what Mozart did complies with our present definition of 'genius'. I also think that the same could be applied to Bach and Beethoven. As to other composers, I can't be absolutely sure. A number of them were prodigies and composed incredible works, but I can't be sure where to draw the line between 'genius' and 'not genius'.

And no, I don't owe anyone any further explanation and have no interest in doing so.


----------



## Fugue Meister

This will be my final word on the matter. *No one is saying Mozart isn't a genius.* The thing is many people here say that Mozart is unequivocally the all-being master of composers and no one bests him. There are a few of us here that are trying to dispel that notion and are asking for proof from these particular Mozart die-hards why they would think such a silly misguided thing. If it is your personal opinion that's fine but it is just that and opinion and you have to make room for others opinion that Mozart isn't. However some of the die-hards are asserting certain opinions as facts without citing sources or listing evidence to back there claims, which for those of us who are rational take issue with.

Mozart is unquestionably a genius, one of the finest examples of artistic achievement in all of mankind but he he was human and not everything he did is above criticism nor is can he be said to be greater than some of the other great masters.


----------



## mmsbls

Fugue Meister said:


> This will be my final word on the matter. *No one is saying Mozart isn't a genius.* The thing is many people here say that Mozart is unequivocally the all-being master of composers and no one bests him. There are a few of us here that are trying to dispel that notion and are asking for proof from these particular Mozart die-hards why they would think such a silly misguided thing.


This thread is now 30 pages long so it's not a trivial task to find specific posts. I don't recall seeing a post that gave me the impression that the poster was implying that Mozart was definitively the best composer. Obviously I could have missed one or more such posts, but I got the impression that some were arguing that he was clearly a genius and some were arguing that he was superior to particular composers but not that he was without question the best.

_If_ someone can _easily_ locate a post that does basically say something like "Mozart is definitively the best composer", would she mind pointing it out? Please don't work too hard since it's not that important.


----------



## DavidA

Fugue Meister said:


> This will be my final word on the matter. *No one is saying Mozart isn't a genius.* The thing is many people here say that Mozart is unequivocally the all-being master of composers and no one bests him. There are a few of us here that are trying to dispel that notion and are asking for proof from these particular Mozart die-hards why they would think such a silly misguided thing. If it is your personal opinion that's fine but it is just that and opinion and you have to make room for others opinion that Mozart isn't. However some of the die-hards are asserting certain opinions as facts without citing sources or listing evidence to back there claims, which for those of us who are rational take issue with.
> 
> Mozart is unquestionably a genius, one of the finest examples of artistic achievement in all of mankind but he he was human and not everything he did is above criticism nor is can he be said to be greater than some of the other great masters.


I don't know where you get all this from. I haven't read any 'Mozart die-hards' saying his works are 'beyond criticism'. Many sources have been cited praising his genius from people with vastly more musical nous than us on TC - people such as Brahms, Wagner, et al. What more do you guys want? Whether he was the greatest of all is of course totally immeasurable. Very difficult to compare different kinds of genius - e.g. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.. What we can say is Mozart's genius is up there with the very greatest.


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> This thread is now 30 pages long so it's not a trivial task to find specific posts. I don't recall seeing a post that gave me the impression that the poster was implying that Mozart was definitively the best composer. Obviously I could have missed one or more such posts, but I got the impression that some were arguing that he was clearly a genius and some were arguing that he was superior to particular composers but not that he was without question the best.
> 
> _If_ someone can _easily_ locate a post that does basically say something like "Mozart is definitively the best composer", would she mind pointing it out? Please don't work too hard since it's not that important.


If I may say so, I find a lot of the discussion has really been about semantics and "proof" etc. in a generalist argument and really not much about the quality of WAM's music from a historical and musical point of view. That was the reason why I have always tried to show with good examples of WAM's music by posting beautiful pieces he wrote especially during his younger years, say before he turned twenty-five. His twenty-seven plus piano concertos are great examples as by the time he stopped writing them, there was nothing on the planet as far as symphonic piano concertos were concerned that displayed that standard and originality at that point in time. Whatever he wrote for the piano concerto, the course of artistic development for that genre went with him.

Let's sit back and enjoy this lovely piece, composed when WAM was nineteen.


----------



## hpowders

I used to like Mozart a lot more than I do now. Sure he was one of the three or four greatest musical geniuses, but his music no longer speaks to me as it once did. But the same can be said for the music of Beethoven and Brahms.

In my autumn years, the solo keyboard music of Bach and the Fourth and Eighth Symphonies of Shostakovich have more relevance for me at this stage of my life.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hpowders said:


> I used to like Mozart a lot more than I do now. Sure he was one of the three or four greatest musical geniuses, but his music no longer speaks to me as it once did. But the same can be said for the music of Beethoven and Brahms.
> 
> *In my autumn years, the solo keyboard music of Bach and the Fourth and Eighth Symphonies of Shostakovich have more relevance for me at this stage of my life.*


And in your winter years no doubt Mozart will become relevant again - he wrote rather a good requiem.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I dont believe I ever said Mozart is the greatest composer of all time - objectively so - I have made a case for him being ranked first based on my own preferences.
He was never infallible - many of his later works even are not up to his top standard. And I have also said on another thread he had no weaknesses in the art of composition - if he set his mind to it - he could do anything - which I believe he proved.
I think when we are talking about genius we need a useful working definition - what we don't need is unhelpful pseudo intellectual pompous lecturing asking for the impossible - ie - demonstrate with concrete example how Mozart's music proves he is genius. At the same time I agree that using links to Mozart's music and saying Listen! - is also not helpful.
So I support those who have sought the views of notable figures in posterity (relative to Mozart) who clearly think Mozart is a unique quite special composer - have declared him virtually divine - and try to find out what it is in his work that produces this response.


----------



## hpowders

stomanek said:


> And in your winter years no doubt Mozart will become relevant again - he wrote rather a good requiem.


And an even better c minor Mass some years before. Alas, never completed. I play it every once and a while. Astonishing, the fluidity he had in writing for the female voice. In that, Mozart was the greatest composer ever!


----------



## poconoron

hpowders said:


> Astonishing, the fluidity he had in writing for the female voice. In that, Mozart was the greatest composer ever!


Really, the greatest????? As some others have insisted on this thread.....Prove it...............:lol::tiphat::lol:


----------



## TxllxT

*Mozart by Mozart*


----------



## hpowders

poconoron said:


> Really????? As some others have insisted on this thread............Prove it...............:lol::tiphat::lol:


I don't have to prove it. Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F and G: Don Giovanni, Exultate Jubilate, Le Nozze di Figaro, Cosí fan tutte, La Clemenza di Tito and the c minor Mass. Throw in the concert arias for female voice too. The music "proves" it.


----------



## poconoron

hpowders said:


> I don't have to prove it. Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F and G: Don Giovanni, Exultate Jubilate, Le Nozze di Figaro, Cosí fan tutte, La Clemenza di Tito and the c minor Mass. Throw in the concert arias for female voice too. The music "proves" it.


I like it..............


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> If I may say so, I find a lot of the discussion has really been about semantics and "*proof*"





stomanek said:


> *what we don't need* is unhelpful pseudo intellectual pompous lecturing asking for the impossible - ie - demonstrate with concrete example how Mozart's music *proves *he is genius.





poconoron said:


> Really, the greatest????? As some others have insisted on this thread.....*Prove *it...............:lol::tiphat::lol:


What we don't need is references to other posters in terms such as 'unhelpful pseudo intellectual pompous lecturing'.

I have not seen anyone _insisting _on anything (except that Mozart is a genius) and certainly not 'proof'. I have seen some posters _asking _for some greater specificity about the features of Mozart's music that might offer a more comprehensive analysis than

he is universally liked...
he did it all before he was 35...
just listen to this...
it's beautiful...

None of these stand up to any scrutiny, no matter how valid they may be. Doubtless it's tiresome to be challenged in this way; just as tiresome as having posts misrepresented as an unhelpful pompous pseudo-intellectual lecturing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> What we don't need is references to other posters in terms such as 'unhelpful pseudo intellectual pompous lecturing'.
> 
> I have not seen anyone _insisting _on anything (except that Mozart is a genius) and certainly not 'proof'. I have seen some posters _asking _for some greater specificity about the features of Mozart's music that might offer a more comprehensive analysis than
> 
> he is universally liked...
> he did it all before he was 35...
> just listen to this...
> it's beautiful...
> 
> None of these stand up to any scrutiny, no matter how valid they may be. Doubtless it's tiresome to be challenged in this way; just as tiresome as having posts misrepresented as an unhelpful pompous pseudo-intellectual lecturing.


I like your avatar. Much better. who is she?


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> None of these stand up to any scrutiny, no matter how valid they may be.


Oxymoron. Validity means that something stands up to scrutiny.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> I dont believe I ever said Mozart is the greatest composer of all time - objectively so - I have made a case for him being ranked first based on my own preferences.
> He was never infallible - many of his later works even are not up to his top standard. And I have also said on another thread he had no weaknesses in the art of composition - if he set his mind to it - he could do anything - which I believe he proved.
> I think when we are talking about genius we need a useful working definition - what we don't need is unhelpful pseudo intellectual pompous lecturing *asking for the impossible - ie - demonstrate with concrete example how Mozart's music proves he is genius*. At the same time I agree that using links to Mozart's music and saying Listen! - is also not helpful.
> So I support those who have sought the views of notable figures in posterity (relative to Mozart) who clearly think Mozart is a unique quite special composer - have declared him virtually divine - and *try to find out what it is in his work that produces this response*.


So if I've got this clear: You think it's impossible to use actual examples of Mozart's music to demonstrate he's a genius, but you support the idea of trying to find out what's in his music that makes people think he's a genius.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> What we don't need is references to other posters in terms such as 'unhelpful pseudo intellectual pompous lecturing'.
> 
> I have not seen anyone _insisting _on anything (except that Mozart is a genius) and certainly not 'proof'. I have seen some posters _asking _for some greater specificity about the features of Mozart's music that might offer a more comprehensive analysis than
> 
> he is universally liked...
> he did it all before he was 35...
> just listen to this...
> it's beautiful...
> 
> None of these stand up to any scrutiny, no matter how valid they may be. Doubtless it's tiresome to be challenged in this way; just as tiresome as having posts misrepresented as an unhelpful pompous pseudo-intellectual lecturing.


I'm afraid the vast majority of the listening and academic world would disagree on generalist, non-musical arguments. We could as well be discussing about Caravaggio for example instead. Let's just sit back and enjoy another wonderful piece proving Mozart was a genius, this time his Clarinet Quintet, a precursor to early Romanticism that saw nothing to its equal at that point in time, and of great influence later. And for those who are keen to read a little bit more about educated history of the basset horn and Anton Stadler, one would recognize even further why this was a work of genius for a basset horn of Mozart's time given the score.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Nereffid said:


> So if I've got this clear: You think it's impossible to use actual examples of Mozart's music to demonstrate he's a genius, but you support the idea of trying to find out what's in his music that makes people think he's a genius.


I mean there seems to be no objective scientific method of proving, by analyses of his music - that he is a genius - but that there may be some qualities in his music (ie general characteristics) that lead listeners to a certain view of him as a genius. Do you see the distinction?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DaveM said:


> Oxymoron. Validity means that something stands up to scrutiny.


congrats - you got him there. that's why he has not replied and he always replies.


----------



## DeepR

All I need is my own experience in music, completely independent and ignorant of outside influence, fact or opinion, to establish to myself, that he was a genius, or a great composer, or whatever. One piece or movement of a piece can be enough to convince me. In the case of Mozart it was the finale of symphony no. 41. I call it hyper-subjectivity and it is the way forward, as the rest is a waste of time. Time that could be better spent listening to music. So what am I still doing here?


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> that's why he has not replied and he always replies.


Curiously enough, I have a job to go to. If you're such a close observer of my posting habits, you might have noticed that I'm most active early in the morning before I go to work!



DaveM said:


> Oxymoron. Validity means that something stands up to scrutiny.


None of the statements (one is actually a command, not a statement) stands up to scrutiny as detailed explanations of the characteristics of Mozart's music that might justify the term 'genius', though each statement might carry validity as a statement of fact in its own right. Mozart may well have been 35 when he died, but that tells us nothing about the quality of his music (though he might have matured into a great composer had he lived as long as Haydn :devil



ArtMusic said:


> I'm afraid the vast majority of the listening and academic world would disagree


With what? And what does Caravaggio have to do with the price of bread?


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> With what? And what does Caravaggio have to do with the price of bread?


With the Clarinet Quintet as an example (see my post earlier) and its historical and musical context with the basset horn. Pure and simple musical arguments.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> I mean there seems to be no objective scientific method of proving, by analyses of his music - that he is a genius - but that there may be some qualities in his music (ie general characteristics) that lead listeners to a certain view of him as a genius. Do you see the distinction?


Funnily enough, not only do I see the distinction, but that was pretty much the point I was trying to make all along.

I don't expect anyone to _prove_ something that can't be proven; but I still haven't really seen anyone say anything for themselves except some vague superlatives - yes, some people have pointed to statements and analyses made by _others_ - which seems to imply that "Mozart is a genius" might just be a bit of received wisdom.


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> Funnily enough, not only do I see the distinction, but that was pretty much the point I was trying to make all along.
> 
> I don't expect anyone to _prove_ something that can't be proven; but I still haven't really seen anyone say anything for themselves except some vague superlatives - yes, some people have pointed to statements and analyses made by _others_ - which seems to imply that "Mozart is a genius" might just be a bit of received wisdom.


There is actually no objective method of proving anyone is a genius, whether Leonardo, Mozart or Einstein. So what we usually do is to look at the work they produced and make a decision. It helps if our opinions are backed by leading authorities with experience in the fields these men worked in. Then we apply the word 'Genius' if appropriate. It seems a lot of this thread has been taken up with the pointless argument that there is no objective proof of genius, something which is actually quite obvious. But because there is no objective proof it doesn't mean the word should not be applied.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> There is actually no objective method of proving anyone is a genius, whether Leonardo, Mozart or Einstein. So what we usually do is to look at the work they produced and make a decision. It helps if our opinions are backed by leading authorities with experience in the fields these men worked in. Then we apply the word 'Genius' if appropriate. It seems a lot of this thread has been taken up with the pointless argument that there is no objective proof of genius, something which is actually quite obvious. But because there is no objective proof it doesn't mean the word should not be applied.


But I agree with all of this.

What I'm asking for is _how_ did _you_ make the decision that Mozart was a genius?

Stomanek has remarked on the emotional qualities of Mozart's music, and while I share his opinion, I'm still unclear as to how this moves Mozart from "a great composer" (or, I suppose more accurately, "a composer I love") to "a genius", other than the latter simply being a more effusive version of the former.
ArtMusic keeps naming Mozart works and saying "see! genius!", but frankly he might as well be picking works at random for all the insight _that_ offers.

And here's some of the things you've said:
"Mozart is remarkable for the way his genius developed and continually produced greater and greater masterpieces."
"Don't look at the myths - just listen to the music! That to me is obvious!"
"Whenever I hear [Figaro] I still marvel at the sheer perfection and sublimity of the music!"

I totally get that you love this music and that you hear it as perfect and sublime; I love some of it too. But I'm curious as to whether you can offer some insight into _how_ you find it perfect and sublime, by pointing to something particular in the music, or is this just a purely gut reaction? If it _is_ a purely gut reaction, I'm fine with that, because that's how I react to music. In fact, I think that "musicological" explanations for why something appeals to us are just after-the-fact rationalisations of an inexplicable reaction (and that's why I avoid universals like "greatest"). So if you have any of these rationalisations, what are they?

But when people say "just listen to the music" and "it's obvious", that suggests to me that they think there's something in the music that will trigger that gut reaction in _anyone_, and so I expect that they already know what that "something" is. But nobody seems to want to tell us what it is! Other, of course, than with vague words like "emotional" and "perfect"... and "genius".

And when you say Mozart "produced greater and greater masterpieces", does this _only_ mean he "produced pieces of music that I like more and more" - which again, I'm fine with as an explanation. But the former sounds like it's trying to be an objective or universal statement of fact - which surely requires some further elaboration as to _how_ you came to the decision that one of these masterpieces is greater than the previous ones.


----------



## poconoron

What we have here, Watson, is a small cadre of people "playing" the rest of us for their own strange and unusual amusement. They know what they're doing is a ridiculous exercise that has no real meaning, but can't help themselves. They get their kicks out of hopefully getting under our skins. Trust me - they know in their heart of hearts that WAM was indeed a genius of the highest order.

I would strongly suggest that we ignore them, and _they_ _might_ go away, seeking their "amusements" elsewhere. 
Now onto more substantive ponderings.................
signed,
S.H.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I mean there seems to be no objective scientific method of proving, by analyses of his music - that he is a genius - but that there may be some qualities in his music (ie general characteristics) that lead listeners to a certain view of him as a genius.


I agree too!



Nereffid said:


> I don't expect anyone to _prove_ something that can't be proven


Nor do I.



DavidA said:


> There is actually no objective method of proving anyone is a genius, whether Leonardo, Mozart or Einstein. So what we usually do is to look at the work they produced and make a decision. It helps if our opinions are backed by leading authorities with experience in the fields these men worked in. Then we apply the word 'Genius' if appropriate. It seems a lot of this thread has been taken up with the pointless argument that there is no objective proof of genius, something which is actually quite obvious.


Agreed. But might there be some _evidence_?



Nereffid said:


> But I agree with all of this.
> 
> What I'm asking for is _how_ did _you_ make the decision that Mozart was a genius?


Me too.

It seems that agreement is breaking out all over the place.



poconoron said:


> What we have here, Watson, is a small cadre of people "playing" the rest of us for their own strange and unusual amusement. They know what they're doing is a ridiculous exercise that has no real meaning, but can't help themselves. They get their kicks out of hopefully getting under our skins.
> signed,
> S.H.


I say Holmes, do you really think so? What an absolute shower! Shouldn't we report them to the mods?


----------



## DaveM

Post removed for revision. See below.


----------



## PlaySalieri

How often MacCleod - have you thought upon hearing some music - ah that is beautiful!

and what if someone said - prove it!


----------



## ArtMusic

poconoron said:


> What we have here, Watson, is a small cadre of people "playing" the rest of us for their own strange and unusual amusement. They know what they're doing is a ridiculous exercise that has no real meaning, but can't help themselves. They get their kicks out of hopefully getting under our skins. Trust me - they know in their heart of hearts that WAM was indeed a genius of the highest order.
> 
> I would strongly suggest that we ignore them, and _they_ _might_ go away, seeking their "amusements" elsewhere.
> Now onto more substantive ponderings.................
> signed,
> S.H.


I should have known better. 

Now I am going to spoil myself with another work of genius to indulge my listening sensibility!


----------



## DaveM

The demand by a few in this thread for objective proof that Mozart was a genius has often risen to the point of an unreachable extreme. And just for the record, one or two of these posters are being disingenuous when they say they are not demanding proof. In fact, it might be said that their demands emanate from a subjective bias when they dismiss presented musical examples as irrelevant subjectivity. By that I mean that their view of objectivity has become subjectively simplistic to the point of inaccuracy or even demanding the impossible.

First let's look at the definitions in question:

Objectivity _-lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. 
-striving (as far as possible or practicable) to reduce or eliminate biases, prejudices, or subjective evaluations by relying on verifiable data._

Genius _-extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity
-a very smart or talented person : a person who has a level of talent or intelligence that is very rare or remarkable
-exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability_

In any evaluation of whether an individual is a genius or not, the level of objectivity applied can never be absolute, but will be on some continuum from zero to whatever maximum is possible. Note in the definition of objectivity above where it says _'striving (as far as possible or practicable)...'_
Thus, proving that Mozart is a genius as an absolute scientific fact is impossible. We can't directly test his intellect. But we do have a lot of evidence that his 'level of talent' was 'rare or remarkable' and that he had 'exceptional creative power'. That evidence comes particularly from comparing his compositions to those of his peers and contemporaries and appreciating the sophistication and complexity of his compositions, not to mention the number of them, created by a certain age (again compared to other composers).

Generally, it would seem that the more educated one's opinions are on a given subject, the less subjective those opinions are. There are individuals in this thread who have spent a lot of time listening to Mozart's music and comparing it to the works of others from the same period even to the point of analyzing the scores. These people are presenting a more educated and thus, less subjective, opinion than someone who just says, 'Mozart's was a genius because I love his music'.

Also, even the mere pointing out that a lot of very educated musicologists have declared that Mozart is a genius is a fact that carries some objectivity with it. And the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have been declared to be geniuses repeatedly and consistently over at least 150 years does imply some objectivity.

Generally, my point is that while, inevitably, there is always going to be some subjectivity in opinions on this subject in this forum (heck, there is political subjectivity in the opinions of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court), to dismiss the opinions of some of the individuals in this thread as being totally subjective (or implying it) is unfair, simplistic and inaccurate.


----------



## Guest

According to Opera base, the top 10 operas that are the most played in the world include 3 operas by Mozart. Only Puccini matches Mozart. It's quite a feat considering that the genre of Opera significantly evolved and achieved a higher level of refinement in the 100+ years that separate Mozart and Puccini. The libretti are not as modern, yet the music is so sublime that we can clearly say it has stood the test of time. 

If Mozart had only written his operas he would still be considered one of the top composers who ever lived. It's incredible that he also wrote some of the greatest concertos as well. 

Haydn may have surpassed him in quartet writing with Opus 76/77, but that's not to say that Mozart's late quartets are not masterpieces. 

Not underestimating their talents, I don't think that Prokofiev and Shostakovich would have dared to say that they were the equal or superior to Mozart in genius.


----------



## DavidA

V


MacLeod said:


> Agreed. But might there be some _evidence_?


As I said, the same as for Einstein and Leonardo. In Mozart's case K1-626. Why not listen to a few of them yourself?


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> How often MacCleod - have you thought upon hearing some music - ah that is beautiful!


Often.



stomanek said:


> and what if someone said - prove it!


I'd say what Nereffid said above. You can't. But you might be able to explain what it is about the music that makes you think it is beautiful.

If they were a poster in this thread, I might also point them to this post, where I point out that no-one, so far as I can recall, has asked for proof.

http://www.talkclassical.com/41850-mozarts-genius-post1017349.html#post1017349


----------



## PlaySalieri

DoReFaMi said:


> According to Opera base, the top 10 operas that are the most played in the world include 3 operas by Mozart. Only Puccini matches Mozart. It's quite a feat considering that the genre of Opera significantly evolved and achieved a higher level of refinement in the 100+ years that separate Mozart and Puccini. The libretti are not as modern, yet the music is so sublime that we can clearly say it has stood the test of time.
> 
> If Mozart had only written his operas he would still be considered one of the top composers who ever lived. It's incredible that he also wrote some of the greatest concertos as well.
> 
> Haydn may have surpassed him in quartet writing with Opus 76/77, but that's not to say that Mozart's late quartets are not masterpieces.
> 
> Not underestimating their talents, I don't think that Prokofiev and Shostakovich would have dared to say that they were the equal or superior to Mozart in genius.


I think we have reached a dead end in this debate - genius is not something we are ever going to be able to measure.
I dont know if anyone recalls the page tearing scene from dead poets society.


----------



## KenOC

Genius is known by its fruits.


----------



## ArtMusic

... and fruits that remain fresh throughout the centuries. Pure and simple.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> If they were a poster in this thread, I might also point them to this post, where I point out that no-one, so far as I can recall, has asked for proof.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/41850-mozarts-genius-post1017349.html#post1017349


*MacLeod Feb 5, 2016:* _It's proof of nothing but your own inability to construct an argument that supports the contentions being made._

The above is typical of a number of your posts. Constructing an argument that supports one's contentions is comparable to providing proof of one's position. As I inferred in my previous post, your repeated position that neither you or anyone else is demanding proof is disingenuous.


----------



## Guest

"The above" may be typical of a number of my posts, but it is not a demand or even a request for proof. It is merely a rejection of ArtMusic's preceding claim that there are "hundreds of proofs" (by which he means Mozart's compositions). Anyone who wishes to check your 'inference' should go back and follow the exchanges between, most notably, Becca and ArtMusic (start at #329) that precede the post you quote (#350).

What "the above" actually typifies is your repeated false claim that there are posters here (unnamed until now) who have been asking for proof, when what I have more than once stated is that I am looking for an explanation.

Your constant misrepresentation of my enquiries is worse than disingenuous.


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> I'd say what Nereffid said above. You can't. But you might be able to explain what it is about the music that makes you think it is beautiful.


Oh, I freely admit that I don't think I could explain why I find a specific piece of music beautiful without rather quickly falling back on a tautology.
But if I were so rash as to proclaim a favourite composer to be a genius, then I'd be looking at their entire oeuvre and could discuss many different aspects of their style, and so it would be easier to marshall some sort of argument. Sure, it would be subjective and rely on a whole bunch of premises that the sceptic can freely reject, but at least it would offer clarification of why _I_ think the composer's a genius.
Which makes it odder that there's not been any takers here for anything more than some vague comments about beauty and perfection.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> "The above" may be typical of a number of my posts, but it is not a demand or even a request for proof. It is merely a rejection of ArtMusic's preceding claim that there are "hundreds of proofs" (by which he means Mozart's compositions). Anyone who wishes to check your 'inference' should go back and follow the exchanges between, most notably, Becca and ArtMusic (start at #329) that precede the post you quote (#350).
> 
> What "the above" actually typifies is your repeated false claim that there are posters here (unnamed until now) who have been asking for proof, when what I have more than once stated is that I am looking for an explanation.
> 
> Your constant misrepresentation of my enquiries is worse than disingenuous.


This search for 'proof' is a fruitless back alley. The only realm where absolute proof applies is in the realm of mathematics. To ask for it in the assessment of someone's genius is totally inappropriate. Like asking to see a sound or hear a colour. There are indeed many indications of Mozart's genius as there are of Einstein and Leonardo et al. But to ask for absolute proof in the mathematical sense is an absurdity.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> But to ask for absolute proof in the mathematical sense is an absurdity.


I agree! It's _almost_ as absurd as responding to someone's repeated statements that he doesn't seek absolute proof, by repeatedly asserting that he shouldn't be seeking absolute proof.

So, anyway, what _are_ the many indications of Mozart's genius, other than vague ideas like "beautiful" and "perfect"?

Here, just to make it easier, I'll start off by stealing a quote from Alfred Einstein about the "Jupiter" symphony:
"The complete fusion of the _galant_ and "learned" styles here achieved constitutes a moment unique in the history of music. The _sinfonia_ - once a subsidiary form, intended to induce the audience to stop their conversation before the beginning of an act, or to open or close a concert - had now become the very center of a concert program. The slow movement - once an intermezzo - was now a broad and deep outpouring of the soul..."
Manages to mention style, form, emotion, historical importance, and innovation all in one short package. Will it convince a sceptic who's not "tuned in" to Mozart? No, but at least it offers something less vague and _more specific_ as to why the writer might consider Mozart a genius. It's certainly a lot more useful than "Mozart is a genius because his music was unique, historically important, perfect and beautiful".


----------



## Strange Magic

DoReFaMi said:


> Not underestimating their talents, I don't think that Prokofiev and Shostakovich would have dared to say that they were the equal or superior to Mozart in genius.


Shostakovich would never have dared such a thing, but Prokofiev had an ego as big as all outdoors-- maybe bigger--and probably did think of himself as at least the equal of Mozart in his heart of hearts.


----------



## Blancrocher

Strange Magic said:


> Shostakovich would never have dared such a thing, but Prokofiev had an ego as big as all outdoors-- maybe bigger--and probably did think of himself as at least the equal of Mozart in his heart of hearts.


And yet Prokofiev would seem to have engaged in a more productive way with Classical-era music, as evidenced by works such as the 1st Symphony, Sinfonietta, and Romeo and Juliet. His--let me say--"self-esteem" may have aided him in producing works that nevertheless sound original and interesting.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Let's examine the word "wrong". We mostly all accept various aspects of the social contract, I assume. We mostly all declare that physically, mentally, and emotionally hurting or abusing people is wrong (or bad). Why? We can't _objectively_ say that it isn't bad or even wrong, but we agree to the social contract and declare it wrong and bad for numerous reasons, we've weighed its numerous negative effects and as a society we have declared that it's "wrong".

Does this not apply to most words? Can we not apply this to "genius", we've considered all the evidence and have come to the conclusion that Mozart was indeed a genius (as was Da Vinci and Michelangelo, etc.). My point is, can we objectively declare he was a genius? Well no, but so what? We can't objectively say that physically hurting someone is wrong, either, but so what? Furthermore, as I said a few pages back, I think we must diminish the meaning of the word "genius", realize that it's merely a label that doesn't change the music whatsoever, and once again, I must say, what is the harm?

I also find fault with MacLeod finding fault in people saying his music was "beautiful". Ok, sure, maybe it's not the most eloquent way to specify why Mozart would merit the genius label. Einstein said that one of Mozart's slow movements was a "broad and deep outpouring of the soul". It may sound prettier, but it remains a statement that has as much meaning as saying one of his slow movements is beautiful. I can imagine someone responding to Einstein, "_How is it broad, with regards to what? Give me more specificity._" "_How is it an outpouring of the soul? What does that even mean? Whose soul? Explain what you mean by 'deep'? Deep to whom?_".

I also find nothing wrong with the "popular" argument. Mozart excelled and stood out among a crowded field of capable, good, and great composers of his time. His music resonated with fellow musicians, with other composers, contemporary and those who succeeded him (Beethoven, Schumann, Wagner, Mahler, etc.). His music is studied as _an_ example of quintessential and exemplary Classical Era music. His music captured the zeitgeist, so to speak, of his era, and it continued and continues to speak to people this very day.

In closing, what I'm saying is that I find this to be enough, to apply the label of genius to Mozart. I feel that calling someone a genius in the field of music, or the fine arts, does not require the same amount of specificity and rigor that goes into calling something objectively true in the field of science. The bar must be lowered, I guess, and considering the evidence we have in support of Mozart's genius, I find it more than sufficient.


----------



## Strange Magic

Somebody much more knowledgable than I am about both composers--Prokofiev and Mozart--could craft a fascinating essay comparing and contrasting these two prolific and vital composers. I've always been struck by the notion that Prokofiev's obsession to write music in every genre and in vast quantity was best mirrored in Mozart's personality, and vice versa. In his remarks about the Classical Symphony, P referenced Haydn specifically and not M, and I am not sure about what P thought of Mozart. We know he could be very acid about other composers, and was sparing in his praise--liked Ravel a lot, though.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> "The above" may be typical of a number of my posts, but it is not a demand or even a request for proof. It is merely a rejection of ArtMusic's preceding claim that there are "hundreds of proofs" (by which he means Mozart's compositions). Anyone who wishes to check your 'inference' should go back and follow the exchanges between, most notably, Becca and ArtMusic (start at #329) that precede the post you quote (#350).
> 
> What "the above" actually typifies is your repeated false claim that there are posters here (unnamed until now) who have been asking for proof, when what I have more than once stated is that I am looking for an explanation.
> 
> Your constant misrepresentation of my enquiries is worse than disingenuous.


I'll let others decide as to whether what you have been asking for is comparable to 'proof'.

*Proof (definition):*
-'evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.'
-'The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
-'something which shows that something else is true or correct'
-'the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.'

*Feb 4, 2016:*
(In response to Stomanek: those of us who support the idea that M is not only a G but the greatest of them all - have cited the quality of his compositions.)
*MacLeod:* _Sorry, I must have missed where supporters of the idea have offered evidence beyond the restatement of his works being 'masterworks' or the output of a prodigy_.

*Feb 4, 2016:*
*MacLeod:*_ I'm not sure anyone posting in this thread asking to be 'convinced' that he is a genius. But some, including me, are asking for an explanation of the meaning of the term with reference to his actual works. _

*Feb 4, 2016:
MacLeod:*_You still think I'm after 'convincing'? Why can't you accept that I'm looking for illustration, explanation, exemplification, clarification?_

*Feb 5, 2016:
MacLeod:*_ Mozart's reputation as a genius does not rest on my opinion, or anyone else's. It rests on a set of musical attributes that so far, no one has cared to describe._

*Feb 5, 2016:
MacLeod: *_It's proof of nothing but your own inability to construct an argument that supports the contentions being made. 
_

*Feb 6, 2016:
MacLeod:*_Any disagreement with the argument put forward does have the onus of disproval - but an argument has to be ventured first that is subject to analysis._


----------



## PlaySalieri

"Feb 5, 2016:
MacLeod: Mozart's reputation as a genius does not rest on my opinion, or anyone else's. It rests on a set of musical attributes that so far, no one has cared to describe."

So - you seem to imply that these attributes exist even if no-one on this board can describe them to your satisfaction.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Strange Magic said:


> Somebody much more knowledgable than I am about both composers--Prokofiev and Mozart--could craft a fascinating essay comparing and contrasting these two prolific and vital composers. I've always been struck by the notion that Prokofiev's obsession to write music in every genre and in vast quantity was best mirrored in Mozart's personality, and vice versa. In his remarks about the Classical Symphony, *P referenced Haydn specifically and not M*, and I am not sure about what P thought of Mozart. We know he could be very acid about other composers, and was sparing in his praise--liked Ravel a lot, though.


Tchaikovsky made a clown out of himself with his Mozartiana pieces

after that - do you think any first rank composer would dare to touch Mozart in a similar fashion? Haydn a much safer option.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Deleted. I don't care enough.


----------



## mmsbls

The term, proof, is very poorly defined on TC so I would suggest using other terms. I believe MacLeod and Nereffid are asking for some rationale along with examples from Mozart's works (and maybe from others). Nereffid posted one such possible from Alfred Einstein that lets others see how one knowledgeable person views that work.

I'm not exactly sure how detailed these examples or rationale must be to satisfy MacLeod and Nereffid. I gave a few examples similar to Nereffid's (although in one case I didn't supply the exact experts). The page I linked to has some further ones:

Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
- (George Szell)

The best of Mozart's works cannot be even slightly rewritten without diminishment.
- (Peter Shaffer)

It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
- (Leonard Bernstein)

From my earlier post:



mmsbls said:


> Phil Goulding's book talks about the music gurus saying there are things in other great comoposer's works that "some might have been written differently, but not in Mozart."


In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle; it is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven. - Brahms

All of these indicate that certain experts viewed Mozart's music written in such a way that others could not improve it. Some suggested that other composers could not match this "perfection". If true, I would say that justifies the term genius.

MacLeod and Nereffid: If you desire more specific examples (e.g. What details of the score made Brahms believe that Figaro was perfect? How would a detailed investigation of other great composers' scores show they could be improved in areas but that Mozart's could not?), presumably that would take a journal article or even several book chapters. Maybe you're looking for something a bit more detailed but far from definitive. I still think that will be very hard for anyone here to supply.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

I agree with MacLeod - he is being misrepresented. Indeed, it is possible that the quotes provided above are not actually understood.

MacLeod (and a few others) have made reasonable requests. It is difficult to see why those requests have been interpreted as an attack on the value of a composer that I value as a wonderful composer, but we have clearly hit a nerve by simply asking that question.
Similar sore points appear to have been hit by pointing out that 'precocious' is not synonymous with 'genius', or by revealing that 'most popular' does not equate to 'unsurpassed in quality'. 
We have elicited outrage by suggesting that not every piece of Mozart's music bears the mark of genius
We have provoked anguish by expressing that in matters of opinion there is no categorical proof 
We have also pointed to research evidence that has been misunderstood by those who try to use it beyond what the authors of the article stated

Well, enough is enough - for me at least.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I'm not exactly sure how detailed these examples or rationale must be to satisfy MacLeod and Nereffid. I gave a few examples similar to Nereffid's (although in one case I didn't supply the exact experts). The page I linked to has some further ones:
> 
> In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle; it is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven. - Brahms
> 
> All of these indicate that certain experts viewed Mozart's music written in such a way that others could not improve it. Some suggested that other composers could not match this "perfection". If true, I would say that justifies the term genius.
> 
> MacLeod and Nereffid: If you desire more specific examples (e.g. What details of the score made Brahms believe that Figaro was perfect? How would a detailed investigation of other great composers' scores show they could be improved in areas but that Mozart's could not?), presumably that would take a journal article or even several book chapters. *Maybe you're looking for something a bit more detailed but far from definitive. I still think that will be very hard for anyone here to supply.*


You have pretty much clearly encapsulated my issue on this subject. Ordinarily, I don't like getting into 'tit-for-tat' arguments in a forum like this. I'm here because I love classical music. The problem for me began when, in response to general declarations of Mozart's (alleged) genius, more specific information supporting the premise was asked for. That, in and of itself, is okay, but then, legitimate attempts were made to meet that request. But presentations of Mozart's works that attempted to show the sophistication and superiority of his music were deemed insufficient. Statements that expert musicologist deemed his works to be that of a genius were not enough and so on.

It became fairly obvious that what was being demanded qualifies as 'proof' by any definition, but that fact was denied. This isn't a forum of lawyers or expert musicologists so the question becomes: Given that most of us here do our best to explain our positions, what would satisfy these individuals (okay, one in particular)? My sense is that, from the evidence so far, nothing realistically possible would.


----------



## DavidA

Headphone Hermit said:


> I agree with MacLeod - he is being misrepresented. Indeed, it is possible that the quotes provided above are not actually understood.
> 
> MacLeod (and a few others) _*have made reasonable requests. *_It is difficult to see why those requests have been interpreted as an attack on the value of a composer that I value as a wonderful composer, but we have clearly hit a nerve by simply asking that question.
> Similar sore points appear to have been hit by pointing out that 'precocious' is not synonymous with 'genius', or by revealing that 'most popular' does not equate to 'unsurpassed in quality'.
> We have elicited outrage by suggesting that not every piece of Mozart's music bears the mark of genius
> We have provoked anguish by expressing that in matters of opinion there is no categorical proof
> We have also pointed to research evidence that has been misunderstood by those who try to use it beyond what the authors of the article stated
> 
> Well, enough is enough - for me at least.


The requests are simply not reasonable as genius cannot be put into neat little boxes as demanded.


----------



## Kieran

I think it's reasonable to ask people what we mean when we blithely state that "Fulfie's a genius, innit? Just is, mate." But the nature of genius is difficult to describe. Is it the ability to be original? To master forms? To create work that a common consensus regards as being "beautiful" (an attribute which is famously in the eye/ear of the beholder)? My own sense of him being a "genius" is that his creativity is something that is utterly out of the ordinary. Steven Hough acknowledges on his website that "to talk about Mozart is to risk the embarrassment of speaking in that most despicable of dialects: the cliché." But having confessed that temptation, he gives us an insight into Mozart that's fairly instructive:



> In Beethoven we sense someone wrestling with his material - Jacob struggling with the angel; but Mozart is the angel - Gabriel appearing without effort or toil. His compositional skill is worn so lightly it seems like an aura rather than clothing. All the shavings from his workbench have been cleared away, but then we realize that the carpentry was pure Creation in the first place, not craft.
> 
> Mozart is the only composer I know who is able to explore every human mood and emotion - with all their messiness, ambivalence, roughness, brokenness - and present them to us in a circle of perfection, yet without triviality. He is able to find words for the unsayable, and then to make them rhyme. In his most joyful music we are aware that unalloyed happiness is rare, perhaps non-existent in human experience; and in his most sad or tragic moments the pity is always deflected from the ego, but remains deeply personal.


So here he shows not only a composer of music, but a composer of psychology: a man with such insight into both musical composition and human nature that he could use the former to express the latter, in ways which were unique. Does this require "genius?" If you give me a definition of what genius is, then maybe it does. It's not unreasonable to use metaphors and imagination to describe something as vague and subjective as "genius."

"Mozart is the angel."

To put it like that is to say, Mozart is otherworldly, he's not of our kind. Is this meant literally? Obviously not, since I'm sure Mr Hough is aware of Mozart's scatological humour :lol:. But as I asked above, is there a definition of the word genius which excludes Mozart? In terms of music, I can't think of one. And I think that when _most_ fans of Mozart say that he's a genius, maybe we're entitled to a little benefit of the doubt, that we've thought insanely and thoroughly about him, his achievements, been moved by them, and studied them, and we don't always lazily reach for the cliche, but we do realise that there's a short word we can use to describe him when our own efforts fail:

"Genius..."


----------



## Guest

Mozart wrote Figaro in six weeks. End of conversation. Genius-material.


----------



## ArtMusic

DoReFaMi said:


> Mozart wrote Figaro in six weeks. End of conversation. Genius-material.


Mozart wrote the Linz symphony (no.36) in four days, beat that!


----------



## Becca

DoReFaMi said:


> Mozart wrote Figaro in six weeks. End of conversation. Genius-material.


If that is the definition of genius then how about Rossini who wrote Barber of Seville in 2 weeks.


----------



## Becca

ArtMusic said:


> Mozart wrote the Linz symphony (no.36) in four days, beat that!


The Linz symphony is about 25 minutes in length so that works out at about 6 minutes of music per day.

Rossini's Barbiere is about 150 minutes so that is over 10 minutes of music per day.

All goes to show how meaningless such measurements are.


----------



## ArtMusic

Becca said:


> The Linz symphony is about 25 minutes in length so that works out at about 6 minutes of music per day.
> 
> Rossini's Barbiere is about 150 minutes so that is over 10 minutes of music per day.
> 
> All goes to show how meaningless such measurements are.


Yes, meaningless because mere mortals cannot comprehensive the creative process of genius who create such masterpieces in astounding rates  . What more proof do we need?

Handel, Messiah, about 140 minutes in three weeks. 
Handel, Twelve concerti grosso, opus 6, 29 September 1739 to 20 October 1939.

Ah, genius works in astounding ways!


----------



## DaveM

Not to mention The Minute Waltz!


----------



## Chronochromie

ArtMusic said:


> Handel, Twelve concerti grosso, opus 6, 29 September 1739 to 20 October *1939*.
> 
> Ah, genius works in astounding ways!


Astounding indeed!


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> The Linz symphony is about 25 minutes in length so that works out at about 6 minutes of music per day.
> 
> Rossini's Barbiere is about 150 minutes so that is over 10 minutes of music per day.
> 
> All goes to show how meaningless such measurements are.


It is well known that men with composing genius often write their music very quickly. Obviously one of the marks of genius is that they wrote the music so quickly. But then Beethoven's genius was very different, requiring endless rewrites. The actual test is the finished product.


----------



## SimonNZ

DavidA said:


> It is well known that men with composing genius often write their music very quickly. *Obviously one of the marks of genius is that they wrote the music so quickly.* But then Beethoven's genius was very different, requiring endless rewrites. The actual test is the finished product.


_"Gordon Bennett..."_

Mahler didn't even average one a year. Hopeless.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> The term, proof, is very poorly defined on TC so I would suggest using other terms. I believe MacLeod and Nereffid are asking for some rationale along with examples from Mozart's works (and maybe from others). Nereffid posted one such possible from Alfred Einstein that lets others see how one knowledgeable person views that work.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how detailed these examples or rationale must be to satisfy MacLeod and Nereffid.


First, I can see that if others have been inferring my use of the words 'evidence' and 'proof' as exact synonyms, then they would be frustrated by my claim that I've not been asking for proof. DaveM's excellent post surely underlines that I have not been using the terms synonymously.

Second, even expert testimony (ballistic, forensic, psychiatric) in a court of law (where the test of evidence leading to proof is much higher) has to do more than point to the accused and say, "In my expert opinion he is guilty." Some members of the jury might be satisfied that if the expert says so, it must be so, but the judge and lawyers would insist on saying, "Yes, but on what, exactly, do you base your conclusion?" Highlighting that the accused is a consummate and prolific jewel thief is not sufficient to establish guilt either.

Third, those who've offered some insights into the features of Mozart's compositions - and thanks to the few that have - understand exactly what I've been looking for. It is illustration for the uninformed listener that I've been asking for - how his use of form, instruments, counterpoint etc are so much better than that of his contemporaries, for example - that might help explain why he rose to fame when few others of the period did. Of course it requires that I listen to the music, and I can certainly decide for myself whether I find it beautiful. So now, listening to Kraus' flute quintet, I ought to be able to tell not just whether it's a lovely piece, but also why it's not as great as WAM's flute compositions. ("Well of course it's not as great - it wasn't written by WAM!")

Last, I think I'm done here.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> First, I can see that if others have been inferring my use of the words 'evidence' and 'proof' as exact synonyms, then they would be frustrated by my claim that I've not been asking for proof. DaveM's excellent post surely underlines that I have not been using the terms synonymously.


Surely?


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> The term, proof, is very poorly defined on TC so I would suggest using other terms. I believe MacLeod and Nereffid are asking for some rationale along with examples from Mozart's works (and maybe from others). Nereffid posted one such possible from Alfred Einstein that lets others see how one knowledgeable person views that work.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how detailed these examples or rationale must be to satisfy MacLeod and Nereffid. I gave a few examples similar to Nereffid's (although in one case I didn't supply the exact experts). The page I linked to has some further ones:
> 
> Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
> - (George Szell)
> 
> The best of Mozart's works cannot be even slightly rewritten without diminishment.
> - (Peter Shaffer)
> 
> It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
> - (Leonard Bernstein)
> 
> From my earlier post:
> 
> In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle; it is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect; nothing like it was ever done again, not even by Beethoven. - Brahms
> 
> All of these indicate that certain experts viewed Mozart's music written in such a way that others could not improve it. Some suggested that other composers could not match this "perfection". If true, I would say that justifies the term genius.
> 
> MacLeod and Nereffid: If you desire more specific examples (e.g. What details of the score made Brahms believe that Figaro was perfect? How would a detailed investigation of other great composers' scores show they could be improved in areas but that Mozart's could not?), presumably that would take a journal article or even several book chapters. Maybe you're looking for something a bit more detailed but far from definitive. I still think that will be very hard for anyone here to supply.


Thanks for your (typical) efforts to _understand_ rather than _disagree_. :tiphat:

As to the sort of answers I'm looking for, your quotes above are instructive.
I would say that the Szell and Shaffer comments are the sort of things I'm seeing on this thread - meaningless superlatives. "Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement". I can say the same thing about any of my favourite composers. If you don't already share that assessment, how can I convince you that it might be a reasonable thing to say?
Bernstein at least mentions something concrete - Mozart "so perfectly marries form and passion". We can quibble over that "perfectly", but marrying form and passion is something substantial, and we can stop and think about other composers who have or haven't done that.
Kieran's quote from Stephen Hough is some way useful too, though again this is a general impression and it would be nice to see some examples of music that warrants this effusiveness.
I am (or, I _was_, because I've given up this particular exercise in bashing my head against a wall) looking for nothing more detailed than the Einstein quote I provided. It shouldn't have to be on a "musicological" level. But so far all I've really seen here is -
- Mozart was a genius because he wrote all this wonderful music so quickly
- Mozart was a genius because he wrote all this wonderful music so young
- Mozart was a genius because other people say he is
- Mozart was a genius because I mean just listen to this wonderful music, of course he's a genius
So either we all have to accept that his music is _obviously_ wonderful, no explanation needed, or we have to just accept what other cleverer people tell us, no explanation needed.


----------



## Nereffid

Oh, one final thing.

The main reason why I got involved in this argument in the first place is actually a tangential one to Mozart or the question of genius - the issue has ramifications beyond this thread that bother me (and, I know, others).

Simply this: the "explanations" given for why Mozart is a genius are so easily used as sticks to beat other (and by "other", I mean "modern") composers.
Mozart's music is obviously beautiful - and X's music doesn't sound like Mozart's and therefore isn't beautiful and therefore X isn't a good composer.
Everyone loves Mozart - and nobody wants to hear X at concerts and therefore X isn't a good composer.
_I_ love Mozart - and X is rubbish and therefore X isn't a good composer.

The more we can talk about specifics and the less we rely on vague generalisations, the more accepting we can be of differences.


----------



## ArtMusic

Chronochromie said:


> Astounding indeed!


Sure is! One concerto composed on average two or three days! But Mozart's Linz record seems the trump all!


----------



## ArtMusic

Nereffid said:


> Thanks for your (typical) efforts to _understand_ rather than _disagree_. :tiphat:
> 
> As to the sort of answers I'm looking for, your quotes above are instructive.
> I would say that the Szell and Shaffer comments are the sort of things I'm seeing on this thread - meaningless superlatives. "Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement". I can say the same thing about any of my favourite composers. If you don't already share that assessment, how can I convince you that it might be a reasonable thing to say?
> Bernstein at least mentions something concrete - Mozart "so perfectly marries form and passion". We can quibble over that "perfectly", but marrying form and passion is something substantial, and we can stop and think about other composers who have or haven't done that.
> Kieran's quote from Stephen Hough is some way useful too, though again this is a general impression and it would be nice to see some examples of music that warrants this effusiveness.
> I am (or, I _was_, because I've given up this particular exercise in bashing my head against a wall) looking for nothing more detailed than the Einstein quote I provided. It shouldn't have to be on a "musicological" level. But so far all I've really seen here is -
> - Mozart was a genius because he wrote all this wonderful music so quickly
> - Mozart was a genius because he wrote all this wonderful music so young
> - Mozart was a genius because other people say he is
> - Mozart was a genius because I mean just listen to this wonderful music, of course he's a genius
> So either we all have to accept that his music is _obviously_ wonderful, no explanation needed, or we have to just accept what other cleverer people tell us, no explanation needed.


It's not just that. One should look at the musical and historical significance of the pieces, which I have demonstrated with say the Clarinet Quintet as a piece and historical significance for the basset horn. Using generalist arguments, non-musical ones are just semantics.


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> But so far all I've really seen here is -
> - Mozart was a genius because he wrote all this wonderful music so quickly
> - Mozart was a genius because he wrote all this wonderful music so young
> - Mozart was a genius because other people say he is
> - Mozart was a genius because I mean just listen to this wonderful music, of course he's a genius
> So either we all have to accept that his music is _obviously_ wonderful, no explanation needed, or we have to just accept what other cleverer people tell us, no explanation needed.


You miss the point completely friend. Einstein is considered a genius because his body of work work has been examined by physicists at the highest level and has been found to be astonishing - in fact another of his theories has apparently just been proved experimentally.
Mozart is considered a genius because his body of work has been examined by musicians at the highest level and found to be astonishing in its complexity and perfection. And that music - however it was written - still delights and astonishes audiences today, from the most expert professional musicians to the layman who knows little or nothing about music theory. 
Now what more do you want. A profile of Mozart's DNA?


----------



## DavidA

SimonNZ said:


> _"Gordon Bennett..."_
> 
> Mahler didn't even average one a year. Hopeless.


At the time Mahler was considered a conductor who wrote music in his summer holidays. He was actually a noted interpreter of Mozart.


----------



## SimonNZ

DavidA said:


> At the time Mahler was considered a conductor who wrote music in his summer holidays. He was actually a noted interpreter of Mozart.


Not a genius like Mozart, then?


----------



## hagridindminor

It would be one thing if Mozart's "genius" was his due to his ability to grasp the technique at an early age. He did do that but with the help of his father and Haydn influence of course. But I don't think thats what we're talking about. Theres a difference between mastering technique and mastering music, the latter can't really be taught. So the question is how do you learn to develop it, and I think there is something metaphysical about it because it isn't just technique that he managed to grasp but the element of music. Every single note thats played is music, and while he did practice it still came to him effortlessly and childlike. I think he should be put on a pedestal not to show why others are "not as good" but because if we don't we lose the essence of music. 

This is coming from someone who grew up playing the standard classical music playing from the Sazuki books with lessons. Other than the simple minuet piece I don't recall ever learning a Mozart piece but I played plenty of Vivaldi and Bach. Its not that I didn't like the pieces I played but when you're struggling to play a note and each note sounds terrible you don't learn to see music as music but this thing based on technique that you're supposed to do. Looking back if I were to ever become a music teacher, the first think I'd do is expose the student to the essence of Mozart so he understands that music really is an intuitive and fluent means of expression and it is the expression that should be accentuated, while technique is just a tool to do so. I always knew who Mozart was but I always viewed him as some historical elite prick, if I had known otherwise my interest in classical music would have continued at that age. 

I think part of the reason why I'm unable to get into other composers is because society's reluctance to put Mozart in his place in music. We all acknowledge Mozart's talent but to even say that Mozart is your favorite composer in today's times is in a sense is socially unacceptable because it is as if you're promoting elitism, and that is what primarily bothers me. Like the more it is suppressed the more you want it. What is so inherently wrong with setting Mozart as the ideal for music? If anything it only makes me appreciate both other composers and other music more


----------



## DavidA

SimonNZ said:


> Not a genius like Mozart, then?


I have no evidence but I would have thought that Mahler would not have compared himself to Mozart as a composer. I mean, who in their right mind would? Bernstein once said: "Mozart? Who's in that league anyway?"


----------



## SimonNZ

As I'm sure you're aware...I'm asking if by the criteria you list above that you yourself would say that Mahler can't qualify as genius.


----------



## ArtMusic

DavidA said:


> I have no evidence but I would have thought that Mahler would not have compared himself to Mozart as a composer. I mean, who in their right mind would? Bernstein once said: "Mozart? Who's in that league anyway?"


I would classify Mozart as among the top tier composers as well. Does this stop me from enjoying music by an unknown contemporary of Mozart? Far from it. Does it stop me from enjoying music by Jay Greenberg? Far from it. Mozart and the topic of genius is far more revealing into Mozart's composition and his art than almost any other composer. That is the real discussion here for this thread, not irrelevant extrapolation based on what we did not write about Mahler or Greenberg or Sphor.


----------



## SimonNZ

ArtMusic said:


> I would classify Mozart as among the top tier composers as well. Does this stop me from enjoying music by an unknown contemporary of Mozart? Far from it. Does it stop me from enjoying music by Jay Greenberg? Far from it. Mozart and the topic of genius is far more revealing into Mozart's composition and his art than almost any other composer. That is the real discussion here for this thread, not *irrelevant extrapolation based on what we did not write about Mahler* or Greenberg or Sphor.


uh huh...

Hardly irrelevant if you yourself have promoted the idea that writing speedily and prodigiously is an indication of genius. We must now _test_ this theory on _other_ composers of stature to see if it holds true.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> It would be one thing if Mozart's "genius" was his due to his ability to grasp the technique at an early age. He did do that but with the help of his father and Haydn influence of course. But I don't think thats what we're talking about. Theres a difference between mastering technique and mastering music, the latter can't really be taught. So the question is how do you learn to develop it, and I think there is something metaphysical about it because it isn't just technique that he managed to grasp but the element of music. Every single note thats played is music, and while he did practice it still came to him effortlessly and childlike. I think he should be put on a pedestal not to show why others are "not as good" but because if we don't we lose the essence of music.
> 
> This is coming from someone who grew up playing the standard classical music playing from the Sazuki books with lessons. Other than the simple minuet piece I don't recall ever learning a Mozart piece but I played plenty of Vivaldi and Bach. Its not that I didn't like the pieces I played but when you're struggling to play a note and each note sounds terrible you don't learn to see music as music but this thing based on technique that you're supposed to do. Looking back if I were to ever become a music teacher, the first think I'd do is expose the student to the essence of Mozart so he understands that music really is an intuitive and fluent means of expression and it is the expression that should be accentuated, while technique is just a tool to do so. I always knew who Mozart was but I always viewed him as some historical elite prick, if I had known otherwise my interest in classical music would have continued at that age.
> 
> I think part of the reason why I'm unable to get into other composers is because society's reluctance to put Mozart in his place in music. We all acknowledge Mozart's talent but to even say that Mozart is your favorite composer in today's times is in a sense is socially unacceptable because it is as if you're promoting elitism, and that is what primarily bothers me. Like the more it is suppressed the more you want it. What is so inherently wrong with setting Mozart as the ideal for music? If anything it only makes me appreciate both other composers and other music more


I dont know about that. Mozart is the fave composer of so many people it seems commonplace to say he is your fave composer. My stepmother once asked me who my fave composer is - when I said Mozart and asked who her son likes (a 14 yo learning piano_- she looked at me with pride and said "he prefers Beethoven"
that stems from an opinion that beethoven is a deep composer and mozart a fluffy choccie box tune composer of light music. a very common view.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> It would be one thing if Mozart's "genius" was his due to his ability to grasp the technique at an early age. He did do that but with the help of his father and Haydn influence of course. But I don't think thats what we're talking about. Theres a difference between mastering technique and mastering music, the latter can't really be taught. So the question is how do you learn to develop it, and I think there is something metaphysical about it because it isn't just technique that he managed to grasp but the element of music. Every single note thats played is music, and while he did practice it still came to him effortlessly and childlike. I think he should be put on a pedestal not to show why others are "not as good" but because if we don't we lose the essence of music.
> 
> This is coming from someone who grew up playing the standard classical music playing from the Sazuki books with lessons. Other than the simple minuet piece I don't recall ever learning a Mozart piece but I played plenty of Vivaldi and Bach. Its not that I didn't like the pieces I played but when you're struggling to play a note and each note sounds terrible you don't learn to see music as music but this thing based on technique that you're supposed to do. Looking back if I were to ever become a music teacher, the first think I'd do is expose the student to the essence of Mozart so he understands that music really is an intuitive and fluent means of expression and it is the expression that should be accentuated, while technique is just a tool to do so. I always knew who Mozart was but I always viewed him as some historical elite prick, if I had known otherwise my interest in classical music would have continued at that age.
> 
> I think part of the reason why I'm unable to get into other composers is because society's reluctance to put Mozart in his place in music. We all acknowledge Mozart's talent but to even say that Mozart is your favorite composer in today's times is in a sense is socially unacceptable because it is as if you're promoting elitism, and that is what primarily bothers me. Like the more it is suppressed the more you want it. *What is so inherently wrong with setting Mozart as the ideal for music?* If anything it only makes me appreciate both other composers and other music more


yes but where it matters - people already do - in the music schools, music teachers etc - Mozart along with Bach - is like the holy grail - at least in my experience - which is considerable.


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> Kieran's quote from Stephen Hough is some way useful too, though again this is a general impression and it would be nice to see some examples of music that warrants this effusiveness.


There again though, would we not be at a stage where we would say, "listen to this piece of music" and you could reply, "well, that's only opinion that this is genius, but it isn't proof?" Which, by the way, is valid, but only because these things can't be proven...


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> First, I can see that if others have been inferring my use of the words 'evidence' and 'proof' as exact synonyms, then they would be frustrated by my claim that I've not been asking for proof. DaveM's excellent post surely underlines that I have not been using the terms synonymously.


The internet can be a terrible way to communicate. I'm not sure if you've misunderstood me or if I have misunderstood this post. From your first post and including all the others I was certain you were not asking for proof. I also assumed that from reading your posts in other threads. I was hoping that _others_ would drop the term from this discussion.

My sense was that in order to really demonstrate to _me_ that Mozart wrote in a way that was superior in some sense to the vast majority of other composers (i.e. he was a genius) one would need to post a large amount of material and that would be beyond the scope of this forum (although one could link to articles and books).


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> The Linz symphony is about 25 minutes in length so that works out at about 6 minutes of music per day.
> 
> Rossini's Barbiere is about 150 minutes so that is over 10 minutes of music per day.
> 
> All goes to show how meaningless such measurements are.


Rossini recycled a bunch of old material for his Barbiere. The entire overture came from an earlier opera! Many other parts of the operas are recycled material as well. And Bel Canto was based on formulas, that's whey they could write operas so fast.

It's not that Mozart could write a 3-hour opera in six weeks that's amazing. It's that he could write an opera like FIGARO in six weeks.


----------



## hagridindminor

stomanek said:


> I dont know about that. Mozart is the fave composer of so many people it seems commonplace to say he is your fave composer. My stepmother once asked me who my fave composer is - when I said Mozart and asked who her son likes (a 14 yo learning piano_- she looked at me with pride and said "he prefers Beethoven"
> that stems from an opinion that beethoven is a deep composer and mozart a fluffy choccie box tune composer of light music. a very common view.


I don't have a problem with saying that, in fact i actually find it quite enjoyable to argue who the better composer is, even if it wont go anywhere


----------



## Mahlerian

SimonNZ said:


> _"Gordon Bennett..."_
> 
> Mahler didn't even average one a year. Hopeless.


Mahler was actually a quite fast composer, once the ideas for a work finally got started (there was always a dry spell at the beginning). The Eighth was famously sketched in about two months, and the Tenth also.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Okay I've read the whole thread of this conversation, In general I find Mozart simplistic and irritating beyond belief. Interestingly he mostly only wrote in a handful major keys - C,D,F, G, sometimes Eb, sometimes Bb. All my least favourite keys, course I don't know how much of that is to do with limitations of earlier instruments, temperament etcetera. 

Obviously composing anything that whole at the age of seven is impressive but I can't see a reason for raising him above every other famous composer. I can appreciate his work but music is for listening. I don't like listening to Mozart, it's too perfect and rigid - it's too based on strict patterns and chord progressions and 1,4,5 chords. And those massively long endings that are two pages of build up to the final bar is so annoying. Ugh, I know where it's going, there are no surprises, not like Grieg or Debussy who are full of accidentals and richer colours. Obviously they were probably influenced by him and could only experiment because of the solid groundwork classical era composers had left behind.


----------



## Bulldog

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Okay I've read the whole thread of this conversation, In general I find Mozart simplistic and irritating beyond belief. Interestingly he mostly only wrote in a handful major keys - C,D,F, G, sometimes Eb, sometimes Bb. All my least favourite keys, course I don't know how much of that is to do with limitations of earlier instruments, temperament etcetera.


What's your opinion of Haydn's music?


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Not listened to enough but slightly less irritating. I listened to Symphony 94 just now. Like I say I do prefer Romantic/Modern composers - Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Grieg, Borodin, Satie, Ravel that kind of thing so it may be just a general dislike of the Classical era. Course the fact that Mozart is worshipped like a God makes me infuriated and more determined to dislike him even more than I do instinctively.


----------



## Bulldog

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Not listened to enough but slightly less irritating. I listened to Symphony 94 just now. Like I say I do prefer Romantic/Modern composers - Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Grieg, Borodin, Satie, Ravel that kind of thing so it may be just a general dislike of the Classical era. Course the fact that Mozart is worshipped like a God makes me infuriated and more determined to dislike him even more than I do instinctively.


Thanks for your quick response. Think I'll listen now to some Satie.


----------



## hagridindminor

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Okay I've read the whole thread of this conversation, In general I find Mozart simplistic and irritating beyond belief. Interestingly he mostly only wrote in a handful major keys - C,D,F, G, sometimes Eb, sometimes Bb. All my least favourite keys, course I don't know how much of that is to do with limitations of earlier instruments, temperament etcetera.
> 
> Obviously composing anything that whole at the age of seven is impressive but I can't see a reason for raising him above every other famous composer. I can appreciate his work but music is for listening. I don't like listening to Mozart, it's too perfect and rigid - it's too based on strict patterns and chord progressions and 1,4,5 chords. And those massively long endings that are two pages of build up to the final bar is so annoying. Ugh, I know where it's going, there are no surprises, not like Grieg or Debussy who are full of accidentals and richer colours. Obviously they were probably influenced by him and could only experiment because of the solid groundwork classical era composers had left behind.


Mozart's music is far more delicate and precise as opposed to romantic music and many piano players would tell you that the pieces are deceptively difficult to play because each mistake becomes obvious. Romantic music, while I can certainly understand why someone might prefer it, a lot can be summed up by playing fast interchangeable arpeggios in which each phrase does not hold the entire piece together. Its alot easier to impress a friend with romantic music because if some notes are misplayed it isn't entirely obvious


----------



## Rapide

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> ....the fact that Mozart is worshipped like a God makes me infuriated and more determined to dislike him even more than I do instinctively.


That's very interesting: other people's reaction to Mozart's music makes you dislike Mozart "even more".


----------



## Lukecash12

His canons were pleasing both aesthetically and mathematically:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> What's your opinion of Haydn's music?


ha ha ha - slightly less irritating that Mozart. does that make you feel you were right in considering Haydn mozart's equal or better?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Okay I've read the whole thread of this conversation, In general I find Mozart simplistic and irritating beyond belief. Interestingly he mostly only wrote in a handful major keys - C,D,F, G, sometimes Eb, sometimes Bb. All my least favourite keys, course I don't know how much of that is to do with limitations of earlier instruments, temperament etcetera.
> 
> *Obviously composing anything that whole at the age of seven is impressive* but I can't see a reason for raising him above every other famous composer. I can appreciate his work but music is for listening. I don't like listening to Mozart, it's too perfect and rigid - it's too based on strict patterns and chord progressions and 1,4,5 chords. And those massively long endings that are two pages of build up to the final bar is so annoying. Ugh, I know where it's going, there are no surprises, not like Grieg or Debussy who are full of accidentals and richer colours. Obviously they were probably influenced by him and could only experiment because of the solid groundwork classical era composers had left behind.


Mozart is not principally famous for composing at an early age

He is famous for his best work - the mature masterpieces - not his childhood doodling.

You simply dont have an ear for Mozart - or the classical period. You focus on unimportant techical features but really the music just does not interest you period - that's not unusual - I know many Verdi and Beethoven fans who think Mozart is boring. They like something with a bit of oomph - aggressive rythms - soaring melodies. I can understand that.

I love romantic music at its best as well as Mozart at his best - so it's your loss.


----------



## trazom

Bulldog said:


> What's your opinion of Haydn's music?


The inconsistency between this response and the one on the thread asking for examples of weaker compositions by JS Bach, while not very surprising, is still very funny.


----------



## DaveM

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> I don't like listening to Mozart, it's too perfect and rigid - it's too based on strict patterns and chord progressions and 1,4,5 chords. And those massively long endings that are two pages of build up to the final bar is so annoying. Ugh, I know where it's going, there are no surprises...


I can see where you might get that impression if you listened only to some of his symphonies and other, particularly earlier, works, but I don't see how that could in any way, shape or form apply to works such as the Piano Concerto #20 or the last 4 operas (Cosi, Figaro, Don Giovanni, Magic Flute). And then there is the Clarinet Concerto, Requiem...


----------



## DavidA

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Okay I've read the whole thread of this conversation, *In general I find Mozart simplistic and irritating beyond belief. * Interestingly he mostly only wrote in a handful major keys - C,D,F, G, sometimes Eb, sometimes Bb. All my least favourite keys, course I don't know how much of that is to do with limitations of earlier instruments, temperament etcetera.
> 
> Obviously composing anything that whole at the age of seven is impressive but I can't see a reason for raising him above every other famous composer. I can appreciate his work but music is for listening. I don't like listening to Mozart, it's too perfect and rigid - it's too based on strict patterns and chord progressions and 1,4,5 chords. And those massively long endings that are two pages of build up to the final bar is so annoying. Ugh, I know where it's going, there are no surprises, not like Grieg or Debussy who are full of accidentals and richer colours. Obviously they were probably influenced by him and could only experiment because of the solid groundwork classical era composers had left behind.


now I've heard everything!


----------



## Lukecash12

DavidA said:


> now I've heard everything!


Lol, yeah, when I initially read that I was thinking: "I remember when I had my first beer... "


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Well it's not my loss, the fact that I do not like Mozart is not diminishing my life in any way at all.

I was emphasising that Mozart is known for being a child prodigy and many people focus on that when they say he's a genius. Maybe not you or I though.

I've studied Mozart, I've done Grade 8 piano and clarinet so I've played hundreds of pieces by him, actually I've played the clarinet concerto he wrote the year he died and I dislike that too, even if it is a mature masterpiece. It's really sweet that he wrote it for his friend though. I mean to have music written for you is just really cool.

Lastly while I did say I prefer Romantic composers I find it galling that you make the incorrect assumption that because I don't like Mozart I don't like the classical period. True, I do prefer late 19th century stuff but I like some Beethoven, namely the Pastoral Symphony, not the 9th - of course you're going to say he can be classed as early Romantic, probably why I enjoy some better.

My final point is when you say I don't have an ear for classical period, I'm not saying I can't appreciate Mozart and analyse it but music is for listening and I can't listen to him because the music of his that I've listened to so far is irritating.

Man, you are amazing at generalizing.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Ugh the clarinet concerto is horrible, I've played it, it's just so annoying as is the requiem. I'll concede that Cosi and Don Giovanni aren't bad because of the hilarious story lines but Magic Flute: there's no connection for me.


----------



## Strange Magic

Ll


Elizabeth de Brito said:


> My final point is when you say I don't have an ear for classical period, I'm not saying I can't appreciate Mozart and analyse it but music is for listening and I can't listen to him because the music of his that I've listened to so far is irritating.


Perhaps you could say that you are not the audience for whom Mozart's music was written.


----------



## DaveM

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Ugh the clarinet concerto is horrible, I've played it, it's just so annoying as is the requiem. I'll concede that Cosi and Don Giovanni aren't bad because of the hilarious story lines but Magic Flute: there's no connection for me.


Well, you are a tough sell. Of course, you have the right to like & dislike the music of any composer you wish, but I must admit, I've never heard the adjectives 'irritating' and 'annoying' applied to Mozart's music.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Haha well maybe it's time someone said it. A woman I spoke to last year said she knew some circles in which I'd get shot for saying such a thing. I can't help but draw a parallel between that attitude and some reactions to criticisms of some religions. Mozart seems to be worshipped much the same as deities. I'm listening to John Williams score for Sabrina at the moment- very Debussy esque and nothing Mozart did can match this exquisite beauty. If you heaven't heard it then check it out.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

What audience would that be?


----------



## hagridindminor

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Haha well maybe it's time someone said it. A woman I spoke to last year said she knew some circles in which I'd get shot for saying such a thing. I can't help but draw a parallel between that attitude and some reactions to criticisms of some religions. Mozart seems to be worshipped much the same as deities. I'm listening to John Williams score for Sabrina at the moment- very Debussy esque and nothing Mozart did can match this exquisite beauty. If you heaven't heard it then check it out.


Uhm I'm a huge John Williams fan and everything but that is the most generic romantic music I've ever heard (not literally btw) People say Mozart is repetitive, but this type of music and the majority of romantic music can be summed as the description of "backround music for a fancy rich 1930s party"


----------



## Strange Magic

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> What audience would that be?


That would be the audience of those who like his music. That would include me.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

What do you mean I'm a huge John Williams fan and everything? There's no reason why because you like Star Wars (I'm assuming albeit probably incorrectly) you should like this too. I really dislike Beethovens 9th but his 6th is amazing. I dislike all of Beyonce's music except for one song called Love On Top which I think is so beautiful and soulful.

I was just listening to it and thought about sharing some music I love with you since we're discussing music. You don't have to like it and you should never come close to apologising for not liking something but it's good to be open to trying music out. I appreciate you listening. I'm always up for listening to new things myself, plus then when you hear music you don't like it helps define your taste, especially if you can work out why you don't like it you can steer yourself to music you do like.

This is so refreshing for me to have a good discussion about classical music. I've been hanging out with lots of people who I can't talk to about classical music so it's great to finally speak my mind about things and hear what others have to say so thank you.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Ah okay, my cynical side at the back of my head was thinking you'd have a more incendiary answer.


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> ha ha ha - slightly less irritating that Mozart. does that make you feel you were right in considering Haydn mozart's equal or better?


Hold on big fella. I was just trying to ascertain if her dislike was of Mozart specifically or classical period music in general. As it happens, I prefer Mozart.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

Music isn't about who is right Stomanek- it's about feeling. It's all subjective. One person who loves Mozart may hate Haydn and the other way round. Likewise one person will love Wagner but someone else will prefer Liszt. It's opinion not fact. As long as you enjoy it and it makes you feel, that's important.


----------



## Dedalus

Reading this thread I just had a random thought to put forward. That is that the idea of a genius is relative to what the average person can do. If we could all compose like Mozart, then Mozart would not be considered a genius. So a genius is basically the top .01% or .001% or whatever, depending just how exclusive you want to be with the term. This doesn't solve anything really, since one still has to determine who belongs in the top .01% instead of only the top 1% (or worse). It's just something I was thinking about. Basically, the word genius must include somebody, otherwise the word doesn't have a reason for existing. Who belongs in that category may be up for debate, but necessarily _somebody_ does.


----------



## PJaye

I have a hard time with the word genius. I prefer to think composers like Mozart earned what they achieved through a willful determination, focus, passion and dedication to their work to an extent it may be hard for some of us to imagine. I would rather acknowledge them for these qualities then for some supposed god/nature given gift. Sure, some people can be more naturally inclined to certain things, such as Mozart was at learning the piano and composition early on, but that is nothing more than a single step and inclination in the right direction, after which it's all up to that person whether anything further will come of it. By *choosing *to work with such determined effort. By choosing to study and learn the art of composing, and the inner and outer journeys of learning that requires, and putting their blood and sweat into it, someone like Mozart can truly show us something about the human spirit and its potential. That's my opinion anyway. I think I may have said something similar before, but I do feel like it needs to be said sometimes.


----------



## Woodduck

The best people to ask about Mozart's - or anyone's - genius are other people in the field. You might ask them "Could you have done anything remotely comparable to what he did?"

See what answer you get.


----------



## Lukecash12

PJaye said:


> I have a hard time with the word genius. I prefer to think composers like Mozart earned what they achieved through a willful determination, focus, passion and dedication to their work to an extent it may be hard for some of us to imagine. I would rather acknowledge them for these qualities then for some supposed god/nature given gift. Sure, some people can be more naturally inclined to certain things, such as Mozart was at learning the piano and composition early on, but that is nothing more than a single step and inclination in the right direction, after which it's all up to that person whether anything further will come of it. By *choosing *to work with such determined effort. By choosing to study and learn the art of composing, and the inner and outer journeys of learning that requires, and putting their blood and sweat into it, someone like Mozart can truly show us something about the human spirit and its potential. That's my opinion anyway. I think I may have said something similar before, but I do feel like it needs to be said sometimes.


Personally, I *do* think there's a particular type of person that fits the word 'genius'.

Do most if not all geniuses have astounding intelligence, and expend a singularly redoubtable effort on their craft(s)? Indubitably, but that doesn't properly describe the zenith of mental achievement, does it? I've come to the conclusion that there is this other element that defines truly genial people across the humanities and sciences. Whatever their personalities are, extrovert or introvert, bawdy or refrained and austere, there is a profound solitude that is inherent to genius. In their most prolific creative moments they are able to dissociate themselves from everything else but the object of concentration and pursue that object as if it is the sole thing that exists.

At least, I think that kind of solitude is necessary to explain the idiosyncratic ingenuity of the most prolific thinkers.


----------



## DavidA

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Well it's not my loss, the fact that I do not like Mozart is not diminishing my life in any way at all.
> 
> I was emphasising that Mozart is known for being a child prodigy and many people focus on that when they say he's a genius. Maybe not you or I though.
> 
> I've studied Mozart, I've done Grade 8 piano and clarinet so I've played hundreds of pieces by him, *actually I've played the clarinet concerto he wrote the year he died and I dislike that too, *even if it is a mature masterpiece. It's really sweet that he wrote it for his friend though. I mean to have music written for you is just really cool.
> 
> Lastly while I did say I prefer Romantic composers I find it galling that you make the incorrect assumption that because I don't like Mozart I don't like the classical period. True, I do prefer late 19th century stuff but I like some Beethoven, namely the Pastoral Symphony, not the 9th - of course you're going to say he can be classed as early Romantic, probably why I enjoy some better.
> 
> My final point is when you say I don't have an ear for classical period, I'm not saying I can't appreciate Mozart and analyse it but music is for listening and I can't listen to him because the music of his that I've listened to so far is irritating.
> 
> Man, you are amazing at generalizing.


Wow! You are difficult to please! :lol: Mind you, didn't Salieri find genius irritating too? Or was that just in the movie?


----------



## PJaye

Woodduck said:


> The best people to ask about Mozart's - or anyone's - genius are other people in the field. You might ask them "Could you have done anything remotely comparable to what he did?"
> 
> See what answer you get.


That would be an easy no, wouldn't it? I don't think anyone could say yes until they've actually climbed that mountain -to use a common metaphor- in front of them in order to see for themselves. They wouldn't know what they would or could learn in the process, or what they are capable of. The act itself is a process of self-discovery. It would certainly require taking a long hard look at oneself and ones beliefs. It's a challenge of the greatest proportions. Ideas of genius on the other hand may negate potential to begin with. I feel I do qualify as being in the field. Music and composing have been my lifelong devotion.


----------



## PJaye

Lukecash12 said:


> Personally, I *do* think there's a particular type of person that fits the word 'genius'.
> 
> Do most if not all geniuses have astounding intelligence, and expend a singularly redoubtable effort on their craft(s)? Indubitably, but that doesn't properly describe the zenith of mental achievement, does it? I've come to the conclusion that there is this other element that defines truly genial people across the humanities and sciences. Whatever their personalities are, extrovert or introvert, bawdy or refrained and austere, there is a profound solitude that is inherent to genius. In their most prolific creative moments they are able to dissociate themselves from everything else but the object of concentration and pursue that object as if it is the sole thing that exists.
> 
> At least, I think that kind of solitude is necessary to explain the idiosyncratic ingenuity of the most prolific thinkers.


I agree. Those ideas are at the essence of creativity. Acknowledging the reality of that inner world and learning to be attentive to it and comfortable in it. I think anyone can do that though with practice.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Haha well maybe it's time someone said it. A woman I spoke to last year said she knew some circles in which I'd get shot for saying such a thing. I can't help but draw a parallel between that attitude and some reactions to criticisms of some religions. Mozart seems to be worshipped much the same as deities. I'm listening to John Williams score for Sabrina at the moment- very Debussy esque and nothing Mozart did can match this exquisite beauty. If you heaven't heard it then check it out.


You are entitled to your view. I find it odd though that your hate for mozart is in proportion to his reputation.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> *Music isn't about who is right Stomanek- it's about feeling. * It's all subjective. One person who loves Mozart may hate Haydn and the other way round. Likewise one person will love Wagner but someone else will prefer Liszt. It's opinion not fact. As long as you enjoy it and it makes you feel, that's important.


agreed that is very true.


----------



## DavidA

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Music isn't about who is right Stomanek- it's about feeling. It's all subjective. One person who loves Mozart may hate Haydn and the other way round. Likewise one person will love Wagner but someone else will prefer Liszt. It's opinion not fact. As long as you enjoy it and it makes you feel, that's important.


But there are sme facts. My wife hates Wagner and all he and his musc stands for but acknowledges him as a muscal genius as a musician herself. I would have thought that if you are a musician in any form you would at least acknowledge Mozart's genius based on his perfectin of form even if you don't like it yourself.


----------



## Nereffid

I know I vowed to stay out of this thread, but I was browsing through Peter Gammond's hilarious _Bluffer's Guide to Classical Music_ and came across this:

*The proper reaction to Mozart is to go glassy-eyed and full of inexpressible admiration.*

I think it safe to say that one would need to visit a supplier of ocular prostheses to find a better collection of glass eyes outside this thread. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> I know I vowed to stay out of this thread, but I was browsing through Peter Gammond's hilarious _Bluffer's Guide to Classical Music_ and came across this:
> 
> *The proper reaction to Mozart is to go glassy-eyed and full of inexpressible admiration.*
> 
> I think it safe to say that one would need to visit a supplier of ocular prostheses to find a better collection of glass eyes outside this thread. :lol:


It is a great little book. Another comment I remember is that "critics know nothing about music"

Also, "There is no need to look for obscure Bartok because it is all a bit that way!"

"And when we hear he ........... had 20 children what can we say but 'Ah Bach!' The first person who said it was probably his wife!"


----------



## DavidA

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Haha well maybe it's time someone said it. A woman I spoke to last year said she knew some circles in which I'd get shot for saying such a thing. I can't help but draw a parallel between that attitude and some reactions to criticisms of some religions. *Mozart seems to be worshipped much the same as deities. I'm listening to John Williams score for Sabrina at the moment- very Debussy esque and nothing Mozart did can match this exquisite beauty. * If you heaven't heard it then check it out.


I'm sure your statement that Mozart couldn't match John Williams would have Williams curl in embarrassment. After all, we can take it Williams actually understands music!
As for Mozart being 'worshipped' I can assure you that as far as I am concerned nothing could be further from the case. We admire genius and enjoy the music not worship the man.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

DavidA said:


> I'm sure your statement that Mozart couldn't match John Williams would have Williams curl in embarrassment. After all, we can take it Williams actually understands music!
> As for Mozart being 'worshipped' I can assure you that as far as I am concerned nothing could be further from the case. We admire genius and enjoy the music not worship the man.


Really? because the way most talk about him, on this site and off, would definitely indicate hero worship of the music.

Plus maybe I should have added that this is my opinion! I would have added this but I thought any comment on music would be fairly obviously an opinion and not fact. Clearly I was wrong.


----------



## Kieran

Hi Elizabeth,

The way you speak of Mozart reminds me of my friend Siobhan, who's a music teacher in Dublin. She detests him because all she hears are formulaic reactions to stereotypical set-ups in music, and no spontaneity, boldness, brazen displays of flashy deep emotions, etc. She says she misses the muscular fireworks of the Romantics, the complex pyrotechnics etc. So you're not alone in your view of him, and also in common with her, you find the reaction of Mozart-obsessives to be sickly and a bit silly. Whenever I mention Mozart to Siobhan, she pulls a face and imitates something twee and simple. We laugh about it, but that's music, isn't it? What one finds sweet, the other finds to be a little too sugary...


----------



## jdec

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Course the fact that Mozart is worshipped like a God *makes me infuriated* and more determined to dislike him even more than I do instinctively.


Funny that posts later you also said that "_Hate is anger - and *anger* is suffering_."


----------



## mmsbls

Let's focus back on Mozart, his music, and the concept of genious rather than commenting on other members.


----------



## DavidA

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Really? because the way most talk about him, on this site and off, would definitely indicate hero worship of the music.
> 
> Plus maybe I should have added that this is my opinion! I would have added this but I thought any comment on music would be fairly obviously an opinion and not fact. Clearly I was wrong.


Of course I realise it was your opinion. Most statements are on this forum. I mean, comparing John Williams to Mozart couldn't be anything but opinion. I might say I enjoy William's music but compare him to Mozart?


----------



## Woodduck

PJaye said:


> That would be an easy no, wouldn't it? I don't think anyone could say yes until they've actually climbed that mountain -to use a common metaphor- in front of them in order to see for themselves. They wouldn't know what they would or could learn in the process, or what they are capable of. The act itself is a process of self-discovery. It would certainly require taking a long hard look at oneself and ones beliefs. It's a challenge of the greatest proportions. Ideas of genius on the other hand may negate potential to begin with. I feel I do qualify as being in the field. Music and composing have been my lifelong devotion.


I wasn't suggesting asking Jimmy Smithers who plays third trombone in the high school band whether _he_ could do what Mozart did.

Millions of talented people have "climbed that mountain" - given their utmost to do their best - and there are still only a handful of humans in the field of music who have functioned at Mozart's level. Isn't that obvious? Maybe there have been some potential Mozarts and Beethovens and Wagners who never got to show their stuff due to various misfortunes or simple lack of ambition. What would that prove? Genius is rare. That's why we have the word.


----------



## scratchgolf

How many Mozart talents have we lost, who never got to put pen to paper? Perhaps classical music has suffered in the last 75 years because so many lives were lost, on all sides, just prior to. A depressing thought surely, but all the more reason to respect the geniuses who were given the opportunity to create. This is not about the quality of modern music. It's a law of averages. Two Mozart level geniuses can be born in the same home, and none for another for 100 years. The fact we'll never know makes me appreciate what we do know that much more.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> It is a great little book. Another comment I remember is that "critics know nothing about music"
> 
> Also, "There is no need to look for obscure Bartok because it is all a bit that way!"
> 
> "And when we hear he ........... had 20 children what can we say but 'Ah Bach!' The first person who said it was probably his wife!"


Thank you for putting that book into its proper context.


----------



## PlaySalieri

This thing about hero worship - it's not that at all. It's very close and personal - so cant be hero worship. You see we mozart people delight in the existence of Mozart's music - and in a way we also delight in his existence through his music. And if you know the circumstances of his life - the joys he felt - the pain - the worry - the fact he was writing thousands of kisses to his wife while she was frolicking at his expense in Baden Baden - driving him into debt and him writing begging letters to his friends - the fact he was writing the requiem on his deathbed - losing his mother in paris and wondering how he would break the news to his father, the deaths of his children. When you know how he lived - and you hear all those emotions in the music - you feel how he might have felt - if you can connect to that for a moment you would understand some of these comments.
There's some context for this adoration that makes you so so bitter Elizabeth. But you sound young - there is time for you yet to discover the magic. There are some on this forum who have said they hated mozart at 20 but found him special later in life.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Of course I realise it was your opinion. Most statements are on this forum. I mean, comparing John Williams to Mozart couldn't be anything but opinion. I might say I enjoy William's music but compare him to Mozart?


I'm glad she said that - makes me understand where she is coming from.


----------



## trazom

I suppose it's hero worship when it's praise for a composer that the other person dislikes, otherwise it's just humble and enthusiastic opinion.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I don't know, I've read multiple similar posts about Beethoven on this forum, I cringe every time, favorite composer or not. In fact, I cringe even more _because_ he's my favorite composer. If, for instance, these following posts were about Beethoven (or Mahler or Debussy) instead of Mozart, I'd be embarrassed.

- Beethoven's wind quintet (Op. 16) doesn't deserve to grace the same CD as Mozart's wind quintet (K. 452).
- "Tchaikovsky made a clown out of himself with his Mozartiana pieces, after that - do you think any first rank composer would dare to touch Mozart in a similar fashion? _Haydn a much safer option_."
- "your man [referring to Beethoven] is as predictable as chocolate in a melting pot." (after having comically misconstrued an article about "predictability".)

There are _many_ more of these (all from the same poster), but I don't feel like searching anymore.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> Thank you for putting that book into its proper context.


It's a hoot. As long as one has a sense of humour. I bet Wolfie would have chortled. A composer who can write a canon to the words Leck mich im **** has to have a humorous side.


----------



## Chromatose

stomanek said:


> This thing about hero worship - it's not that at all. It's very close and personal - so cant be hero worship. You see we mozart people delight in the existence of Mozart's music - and in a way we also delight in his existence through his music. And if you know the circumstances of his life - the joys he felt - the pain - the worry - the fact he was writing thousands of kisses to his wife while she was frolicking at his expense in Baden Baden - driving him into debt and him writing begging letters to his friends - the fact he was writing the requiem on his deathbed - losing his mother in paris and wondering how he would break the news to his father, the deaths of his children. When you know how he lived - and you hear all those emotions in the music - you feel how he might have felt - if you can connect to that for a moment you would understand some of these comments.
> There's some context for this adoration that makes you so so bitter Elizabeth. But you sound young - there is time for you yet to discover the magic. There are some on this forum who have said they hated mozart at 20 but found him special later in life.


First of all I'd like to say Mozart, totally a genius and I say this because his music is so consistently amazing and the fact that so many revered composers and musicians with way more prestige and knowledge on the subject have said so and given their reasons why..

However I totally agree there is a ton of hero worship going on here on this particular thread (I read through the whole thing and geez did it stir up some fierce debate, sort of unexpectedly) especially from you Mr. Stomanek, not that that's a bad thing, I just say don't be afraid to own up to it and call it what it is. Especially reading the quote above, you do "worship" Mozart, again not that it's a bad thing but your very extreme in your views of Mozart and sometimes critical of others when they are less enamored or have similar views of other composers.

I don't want you to see this is being critical of you, I'm just suggesting you own the fact that hero worship is a thing and you are a disciple of the genius that is Mozart.


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeCX said:


> I don't know, I've read multiple similar posts about Beethoven on this forum, I cringe every time, favorite composer or not. In fact, I cringe even more _because_ he's my favorite composer. If, for instance, these following posts were about Beethoven (or Mahler or Debussy) instead of Mozart, I'd be embarrassed.
> 
> - Beethoven's wind quintet (Op. 16) doesn't deserve to grace the same CD as Mozart's wind quintet (K. 452).
> - "Tchaikovsky made a clown out of himself with his Mozartiana pieces, after that - do you think any first rank composer would dare to touch Mozart in a similar fashion? _Haydn a much safer option_."
> - "your man [referring to Beethoven] is as predictable as chocolate in a melting pot." (after having comically misconstrued an article about "predictability".)
> 
> There are _many_ more of these gems, but I don't feel like searching anymore.


Those quotes are all by the same person, or mostly by the same person(who I thought you were putting on ignore anyways). That doesn't mean Mozart has a much larger following of glassy-eyed worshipers than any of the other big name composers in this forum as one person was suggesting. I've seen comments on tc about Bach being underrated because not every person in the world loved his music, or "how can you criticize the infinite??" and as for Beethoven, here's one interesting example:

http://www.talkclassical.com/members/4-33-.html


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> I don't know, I've read multiple similar posts about Beethoven on this forum, I cringe every time, favorite composer or not. In fact, I cringe even more _because_ he's my favorite composer. If, for instance, these following posts were about Beethoven (or Mahler or Debussy) instead of Mozart, I'd be embarrassed.
> 
> - Beethoven's wind quintet (Op. 16) doesn't deserve to grace the same CD as Mozart's wind quintet (K. 452).
> - "Tchaikovsky made a clown out of himself with his Mozartiana pieces, after that - do you think any first rank composer would dare to touch Mozart in a similar fashion? _Haydn a much safer option_."
> - "your man [referring to Beethoven] is as predictable as chocolate in a melting pot." (after having comically misconstrued an article about "predictability".)
> 
> There are _many_ more of these (all from the same poster), but I don't feel like searching anymore.


Delighted to have made such a strong impression on you!
I dont come on this forum to be diplomacy itself but to state my opinion - and I say it the way I see it. Too bad if it rubs some people the wrong way and if my posts upset you so much I think there is an ignore feature.


----------



## jdec

trazom said:


> Those quotes are all by the same person, or mostly by the same person(who I thought you were putting on ignore anyways). That doesn't mean Mozart has a much larger following of glassy-eyed worshipers than any of the other big name composers in this forum as one person was suggesting. I've seen comments on tc about Bach being underrated because not every person in the world loved his music, or "how can you criticize the infinite??" and as for Beethoven, here's one interesting example: http://www.talkclassical.com/search.php?searchid=2097135


Link is not working?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

trazom said:


> Those quotes are all by the same person, or mostly by the same person(who I thought you were putting on ignore anyways). That doesn't mean Mozart has a much larger following of glassy-eyed worshipers than any of the other big name composers in this forum as one person was suggesting. I've seen comments on tc about Bach being underrated because not every person in the world loved his music, or "how can you criticize the infinite??" and as for Beethoven, here's one interesting example: http://www.talkclassical.com/members/4-33-.html


I don't disagree whatsoever. In fact, I agreed right off the bat that there are many similar posts about Beethoven. There are many other similar posts about Bach. I thought it was clear that I was replying to your comment, the word "otherwise", to be precise: "otherwise, it's just a humble and enthusiastic opinion". I gave my stance on the matter, personally, I cringe when I read similar posts about Beethoven (my favorite composer).

I just can't bring myself to use the ignore function. I have my reasons, I think I just hate "missing out".

PS. The link your provided isn't working.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chromatose said:


> First of all I'd like to say Mozart, totally a genius and I say this because his music is so consistently amazing and the fact that so many revered composers and musicians with way more prestige and knowledge on the subject have said so and given their reasons why..
> 
> However I totally agree there is a ton of hero worship going on here on this particular thread (I read through the whole thing and geez did it stir up some fierce debate, sort of unexpectedly) especially from you Mr. Stomanek, not that that's a bad thing, I just say don't be afraid to own up to it and call it what it is. Especially reading the quote above, you do "worship" Mozart, again not that it's a bad thing but your very extreme in your views of Mozart and sometimes critical of others when they are less enamored or have similar views of other composers.
> 
> I don't want you to see this is being critical of you, I'm just suggesting you own the fact that hero worship is a thing and you are a disciple of the genius that is Mozart.


It's not hero worship though - I dont get down on my knees - nor do I say prayers. Whatever though it doesnt matter to me what you call my condition. But anyway so what I am unashamedly probably the biggest mozart maniac on this forum. The worst I have done is disparged music by some other composers - offended a few Haydn fans by diminishing his achievements in operas (for example) - rubbished beethoven's piano quintet - or said WAM is the best composer. 
Goodness me now I ought to be put up against the wall for all that.


----------



## Chromatose

Just so you guys don't cry fraud in terms of me loving Mozart here is a wonderful short lecture on Mozart by Sir Thomas Beecham, its filled with many examples of his genius as well as other composers thoughts on him as well. He also has some great things to say about personal preference and opinion that I think would do us all well to hear. Hope you take the time, it's totally worth it (not to mention Beecham is very funny).


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> I don't disagree whatsoever. In fact, I agreed right off the bat that there are similar posts about Beethoven. There are many other similar posts about Bach. I thought it was clear that I was replying to your comment, the word "otherwise", to be precise: "otherwise, it's just a humble and enthusiastic opinion". I gave my stance on the matter, personally, I cringe when I read similar posts about Beethoven.
> 
> I just can't bring myself to use the ignore function. I have my reasons, I think I just hate "missing out".
> 
> PS. The link your provided isn't working.


Indeed - you might just miss out on the day I recant all my opinions, accept M for the salon composer he is and dedciate the rest of my life to Beethoven's last quartets. You wouldnt want to miss that day would you.


----------



## Chromatose

stomanek said:


> It's not hero worship though - I dont get down on my knees - nor do I say prayers. Whatever though it doesnt matter to me what you call my condition. But anyway so what I am unashamedly probably the biggest mozart maniac on this forum. The worst I have done is disparged music by some other composers - offended a few Haydn fans by diminishing his achievements in operas (for example) - rubbished beethoven's piano quintet - or said WAM is the best composer.
> Goodness me now I ought to be put up against the wall for all that.


Worship has more definitions than this perhaps you would do well to look it up. Don't be so defensive your in wonderful company, check out that lecture I posted above.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> Indeed - you might just miss out on the day I recant all my opinions, accept M for the salon composer he is and dedciate the rest of my life to Beethoven's last quartets. You wouldnt want to miss that day would you.


To whom are you speaking? Surely it can't be me. What does this have to do with anything? What does this have to do with anything I've ever said? Mozart isn't a salon composer, who said that? Did I? There's more to music than Beethoven's late quartets. Did I say that's all there was? I must ask, where are you getting all of this from?

I just purchased another _Requiem_ (K. 626), my username is taken from it, actually. I think his String Quintet in G Minor is arguably the greatest out there alongside Schubert's, the _Prague_ is one of my favorite symphonies. I just finished listening to the 23rd piano concerto today, I continually come back to his string quartet #15 in D minor, etc. etc.

What are you on about?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> To whom are you speaking? Surely it can't be me. What does this have to do with anything? Mozart isn't a salon composer, there's more to music than Beethoven's late quartets. I must ask, where are you getting all of this from?
> 
> I just purchased another _Requiem_ (K. 626), my username is taken from it, actually. I think his String Quintet in G Minor is arguably the greatest out there alongside Schubert's, the _Prague_ is one of my favorite symphonies. I just finished listening to the 23rd piano concerto today, I continually come back to his string quartet #15 in D minor, etc. etc.
> 
> *What are you on about?*


Oh never mind.
which requiem did you buy?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

stomanek said:


> Oh never mind.
> which requiem did you buy?


Gardiner with the Monteverdi Choir and English Baroque Soloists. I've also got my eye on the Böhm recording, too, since it's so cheap on Amazon.

:tiphat:


----------



## PlaySalieri

DiesIraeCX said:


> Gardiner with the Monteverdi Choir and English Baroque Soloists. I've also got my eye on the Böhm recording, too, since it's so cheap on Amazon.
> 
> :tiphat:


I have been listening the the Gardiner since it came out in 1989 or so - seems to be pretty good. Even managed to get it on LP recently.
The bohm is beautiful though is indeed quite slow paced.


----------



## trazom

jdec said:


> Link is not working?


Thank you for letting me know. The link should work now(my post at the bottom of the previous page).


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chromatose said:


> Worship has more definitions than this perhaps you would do well to look it up. Don't be so defensive your in wonderful company, check out that lecture I posted above.


OK so I found this definition:

"feel great admiration or devotion for."

(wikipedia)

I suppose it must be true then. Cant deny it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

What happened to Elizabeth? 

She has not been back since I challenged her statement that she had played hundreds of mozart pieces on clarinet and piano.

If you are reading this Elizabeth please let us know which mozart piano pieces you have learned - it might give us some better insight into why you have such a poor opinion of Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

trazom said:


> Thank you for letting me know. The link should work now.


no it doesnt. .......


----------



## KenOC

Chromatose said:


> Just so you guys don't cry fraud in terms of me loving Mozart here is a wonderful short lecture on Mozart by Sir Thomas Beecham, its filled with many examples of his genius as well as other composers thoughts on him as well. He also has some great things to say about personal preference and opinion that I think would do us all well to hear. Hope you take the time, it's totally worth it (not to mention Beecham is very funny).


Watched the whole thing. A very enjoyable lecture delivered with great (if quite dry) wit. Thanks for posting it!

Talking about how, in Mozart, every note counts (and paraphrasing from memory): "This is not the case, for instance, with the music of my good friend Richard Strauss. There are very many pages in his Ein Heldenleben or the Alpine Symphony where one could extract a few thousand notes and nobody would be the wiser."


----------



## Bulldog

DiesIraeCX said:


> Gardiner with the Monteverdi Choir and English Baroque Soloists. I've also got my eye on the Böhm recording, too, since it's so cheap on Amazon.
> 
> :tiphat:


Those are two of the best - enjoy!


----------



## Lukecash12

DiesIraeCX said:


> I don't disagree whatsoever. In fact, I agreed right off the bat that there are many similar posts about Beethoven. There are many other similar posts about Bach. I thought it was clear that I was replying to your comment, the word "otherwise", to be precise: "otherwise, it's just a humble and enthusiastic opinion". I gave my stance on the matter, personally, I cringe when I read similar posts about Beethoven (my favorite composer).
> 
> I just can't bring myself to use the ignore function. I have my reasons, I think I just hate "missing out".
> 
> PS. The link your provided isn't working.


Let's not bring Bach into this, fellas...  I mean we all know his name is a synonym for God, right?


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

stomanek said:


> What happened to Elizabeth?
> 
> She has not been back since I challenged her statement that she had played hundreds of mozart pieces on clarinet and piano.
> 
> If you are reading this Elizabeth please let us know which mozart piano pieces you have learned - it might give us some better insight into why you have such a poor opinion of Mozart.


Hi, I spent the day doing other things, while I am pleased to discuss classical music I need to do other things to with my day. Why? Did you think I was avoiding you and being too scared to respond?

Sorry my friend, no such luck. Not only have I played the grade pieces set for me but as any good musician knows, variety of playing leads to more polished and whole musicianship so I've played lots of his Sonatas and minuets plus various concerti. I have also performed in several orchestras, wind bands, wind quintets and other chamber ensembles in which I've played several symphonies and other works and arrangements of all kinds of stuff. Aside from his Clarinet concerto I have played his divertimentos as well.

I'm starting to feel as if I'm having to be defensive to you and cough up my credentials for an opinion that I hold. Which it is, an opinion, just like the opinion that Mozart is a genius. And as for why I have a poor opinion of Mozart, I think I've already made myself quite clear as to why I don't like Mozart in general.


----------



## jdec

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> .. just like the opinion that Mozart is a genius.


Ahem... that is not an opinion, that is a fact.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Hi, I spent the day doing other things, while I am pleased to discuss classical music I need to do other things to with my day. Why? Did you think I was avoiding you and being too scared to respond?
> 
> Sorry my friend, no such luck. Not only have I played the grade pieces set for me but as any good musician knows, variety of playing leads to more polished and whole musicianship so I've played lots of his Sonatas and minuets plus various concerti. I have also performed in several orchestras, wind bands, wind quintets and other chamber ensembles in which I've played several symphonies and other works and arrangements of all kinds of stuff. Aside from his Clarinet concerto I have played his divertimentos as well.
> 
> I'm starting to feel as if I'm having to be defensive to you and cough up my credentials for an opinion that I hold. Which it is, an opinion, just like the opinion that Mozart is a genius. And as for why I have a poor opinion of Mozart, I think I've already made myself quite clear as to why I don't like Mozart in general.


Fair enough - but you have not played hundreds of pieces as you claimed earlier now have you - that is false - you should have said you have played a lot of Mozart. Bear in mind Mozart composed about 600 works total - so it would be quite remarkable if you had played half his lifetimes work.
The other point is that you hate all Mozart and find Haydn slightly less irritating - so you dismiss the two great lights of the classical period. I think it's fair to say you dont like classical period music based on that.


----------



## DavidA

Lukecash12 said:


> Let's not bring Bach into this, fellas...  I mean we all know his name is a synonym for God, right?


I must confess I find this sort of comment annoying. The person who would have been even more annoyed by it would have been JSB himself!


----------



## DavidA

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> Hi, I spent the day doing other things, while I am pleased to discuss classical music I need to do other things to with my day. Why? Did you think I was avoiding you and being too scared to respond?
> 
> Sorry my friend, no such luck. Not only have I played the grade pieces set for me but as any good musician knows, variety of playing leads to more polished and whole musicianship so I've played lots of his Sonatas and minuets plus various concerti. I have also performed in several orchestras, wind bands, wind quintets and other chamber ensembles in which I've played several symphonies and other works and arrangements of all kinds of stuff. Aside from his Clarinet concerto I have played his divertimentos as well.
> 
> I'm starting to feel as if I'm having to be defensive to you and cough up my credentials for an opinion that I hold. Which it is, an opinion, just like the opinion that Mozart is a genius. And as for why I have a poor opinion of Mozart, I think I've already made myself quite clear as to why I don't like Mozart in general.


Does proficiency in playing an instrument necessarily give us the ability to discern genius in others?


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Does proficiency in playing an instrument necessarily give us the ability to discern genius in others?


We dont know her level of proficiency - grade 8 distinctions are not uncommon and even an untalented player with the right tuition can reach that level. 
But anyway it makes no difference - Gershwin dislikes mozart and no doubt there are some top soloists who dont like M.


----------



## Lukecash12

DavidA said:


> I must confess I find this sort of comment annoying. The person who would have been even more annoyed by it would have been JSB himself!


I know, that's exactly what I was going for. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

Lukecash12 said:


> I know, that's exactly what I was going for. :tiphat:


Yes I know you were. You might try something different occasionally - just for a change!


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

DavidA said:


> Does proficiency in playing an instrument necessarily give us the ability to discern genius in others?


I've never said it does.


----------



## Elizabeth de Brito

stomanek;1020592 you hate all Mozart and find Haydn slightly less irritating - so you dismiss the two great lights of the classical period. I think it's fair to say you dont like classical period music based on that.[/QUOTE said:


> I have never said I hated Mozart, I find his music simplistic and irritating and so I choose not to listen to it. i do not put hate in the universe. There are other classical composers and I'm not so narrow minded as to dismiss everything Mozart or Haydn has written. There may be some pieces I will enjoy that I just haven't heard yet.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Elizabeth de Brito said:


> I have never said I hated Mozart, I find his music simplistic and irritating and so I choose not to listen to it. i do not put hate in the universe. There are other classical composers and I'm not so narrow minded as to dismiss everything Mozart or Haydn has written. There may be some pieces I will enjoy that I just haven't heard yet.


Correction - you said you dislike him.
But what you have to say about his music is not correct - he did not restrict himself to a handful of keys and his music is much more complex than you imply.


----------



## Kieran

Glenn Gould didn't like Mozart. Nor did Maria Callas. Not everybody likes him. It's not a sign that these people who don't like Wolfie are lacking in intelligence or integrity, he just isn't to their taste...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kieran said:


> Glenn Gould didn't like Mozart. Nor did Maria Callas. Not everybody likes him. It's not a sign that these people who don't like Wolfie are lacking in intelligence or integrity, he just isn't to their taste...


Gould seemed to dislike later Mozart - but he did record a lot of the middle mozart sonatas.
Callas was a bel canto prima donna (something she was untouchable at being the greatest diva) - she couldnt sing mozart to save her life.

It's not easy to find musicians with views like Elizabeth. A counter tenor told me recently told me he dislikes mozart's operas - but said he likes other works - symphonies, concerti etc. I've never known anyone to dismiss the whole lot. But then the atinal people dont tend to comment on mozart threads - and I dont go to atonal threads saying it's all headache music to me. But I do like Debussy and composers across the history of music. I am not just a mozart fanatic.

Interesting on a visit to the royal college of music junior dept a while ago I noticed young musicians, in their breaks - fiddling with handheld games and listening on their ipods to Beyonce and other trashy sounding pop music. I coudln't believe it - and they were otherwise engaged during the day playing bach beethoven etc. It's sad to think their parents invest a lot of time and money giving them quality culture and they choose to listen to that din.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> I've never known anyone to dismiss the whole lot. But then the atinal people dont tend to comment on mozart threads - and I dont go to atonal threads saying it's all headache music to me.


Fun fact. The data I have from my polls indicate that "the atonal people" on TC like Mozart, while "the Mozart people" are, as a whole, not so broad-minded (but are broad-minded more often than not).


----------



## DavidA

Kieran said:


> Glenn Gould didn't like Mozart. Nor did Maria Callas. Not everybody likes him. It's not a sign that these people who don't like Wolfie are lacking in intelligence or integrity, he just isn't to their taste...


Gould was an iconoclast and frankly could be a bit of an idiot in the thngs he came out with. Just why he recorded all of Mozart's sonatas when he didn't like them - and played them in a distasteful fashion - is beyond me. Perversity for the sake of it. Same with his recording of Beethoven's Appassionata. Richter had it right - if you don't like a piece don't play it!


----------



## Mahlerian

stomanek said:


> It's not easy to find musicians with views like Elizabeth. A counter tenor told me recently told me he dislikes mozart's operas - but said he likes other works - symphonies, concerti etc. I've never known anyone to dismiss the whole lot. But then the atinal people dont tend to comment on mozart threads - and I dont go to atonal threads saying it's all headache music to me.


I'm not an atonal person, I just like great music, a category which happens to include a number of things people apply that dumb term to. Naturally, it also includes Mozart, whose adventurous use of modulation, chromatic passing tones, irregularity of phrasing, wide melodic compass, etc., etc. gives his music, all of his music, a dramatic cast that most of those who disdain Mozart as simplistic or superficially happy seem to miss entirely. Only the surface (if that!) of Mozart's music can seem predictable, while its inner life is richly varied and delights in the unexpected.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not an atonal person, I just like great music, a category which happens to include a number of things people apply that dumb term to. Naturally, it also includes Mozart, whose adventurous use of modulation, chromatic passing tones, irregularity of phrasing, wide melodic compass, etc., etc. gives his music, all of his music, a dramatic cast that most of those who disdain Mozart as simplistic or superficially happy seem to miss entirely. Only the surface (if that!) of Mozart's music can seem predictable, while its inner life is richly varied and delights in the unexpected.


One of the things that's always surprised me in my relationship with Mozart's music is how difficult it is for me to remember it clearly. I'll remember melodies and passages from this and that work, but when I sit down and try to summon up a work I've heard dozens (or hundreds) of times--like the 20th Piano Concerto--I often find that it slides off the mind in a peculiar way, necessitating my listening to it yet again. I'd assumed that it was just my problem (one of many :lol, but some serious musicians have confessed that they knew what I was talking about and felt much the same thing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Blancrocher said:


> One of the things that's always surprised me in my relationship with Mozart's music is how difficult it is for me to remember it clearly. I'll remember melodies and passages from this and that work, but when I sit down and try to summon up a work I've heard dozens (or hundreds) of times--like the 20th Piano Concerto--I often find that it slides off the mind in a peculiar way, necessitating my listening to it yet again. I'd assumed that it was just my problem (one of many :lol, but some serious musicians have confessed that they knew what I was talking about and felt much the same thing.


This view that Mozart's music is primitive/simplistic - based on a few chords/keys is really quite immature in my view. I think those that think this way should read Alfred Einstien's chapters on Mozart's methods, style etc. In any case dry academic studies can tell us little about the music itself. Music can be great whether it is simple of complex - I dont accept a connection between the two. Listen to the moonlight sonata - seems like simplicity itself - but what music. Same with K545 - scales and scales and scales - but a delight to hear when played with an even precise delicate touch.

I know of one leading violinist - a former member of the gabrielli quartet - who insists that Haydn and Mozart quartets, of all quartets - are the most difficult to play well. Pianists have more or less said the same of the sonatas and concertos.


----------



## Fugue Meister

Chromatose said:


> Just so you guys don't cry fraud in terms of me loving Mozart here is a wonderful short lecture on Mozart by Sir Thomas Beecham, its filled with many examples of his genius as well as other composers thoughts on him as well. He also has some great things to say about personal preference and opinion that I think would do us all well to hear. Hope you take the time, it's totally worth it (not to mention Beecham is very funny).


I know I said I was finished posting on this thread but I have to give a plug to this video which was wonderful... Chock-full of pithy insight. Great find newbie. :tiphat:


----------



## Avey

stomanek said:


> This view that Mozart's music is primitive/simplistic - based on a few chords/keys is really quite immature in my view.


Wait, who expressed that view?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Avey said:


> Wait, who expressed that view?


*Originally Posted by Elizabeth de Brito View Post
Okay I've read the whole thread of this conversation, In general I find Mozart simplistic and irritating beyond belief. Interestingly he mostly only wrote in a handful major keys - C,D,F, G, sometimes Eb, sometimes Bb. All my least favourite keys, course I don't know how much of that is to do with limitations of earlier instruments, temperament etcetera.

Obviously composing anything that whole at the age of seven is impressive but I can't see a reason for raising him above every other famous composer. I can appreciate his work but music is for listening. I don't like listening to Mozart, it's too perfect and rigid - it's too based on strict patterns and chord progressions and 1,4,5 chords. And those massively long endings that are two pages of build up to the final bar is so annoying. Ugh, I know where it's going, there are no surprises, not like Grieg or Debussy who are full of accidentals and richer colours. Obviously they were probably influenced by him and could only experiment because of the solid groundwork classical era composers had left behind.
*


----------



## ArtMusic

stomanek said:


> This view that Mozart's music is primitive/simplistic - based on a few chords/keys is really quite immature in my view. I think those that think this way should read Alfred Einstien's chapters on Mozart's methods, style etc. In any case dry academic studies can tell us little about the music itself. Music can be great whether it is simple of complex - I dont accept a connection between the two. Listen to the moonlight sonata - seems like simplicity itself - but what music. Same with K545 - scales and scales and scales - but a delight to hear when played with an even precise delicate touch.
> 
> I know of one leading violinist - a former member of the gabrielli quartet - who insists that Haydn and Mozart quartets, of all quartets - are the most difficult to play well. Pianists have more or less said the same of the sonatas and concertos.


Agree entirely. Again if one reads the Clarinet Quintet score, it is actually one of the most subtle masterpiece ever written in the chamber music repertoire. Mozart's genius was one at which he could be extremely subtle about it.


----------



## KenOC

Ung. Listen to the Andante from the 40th Symphony. Harmonically bland???


----------



## DavidA

ArtMusic said:


> Agree entirely. Again if one reads the Clarinet Quintet score, it is actually one of the most subtle masterpiece ever written in the chamber music repertoire. Mozart's genius was one at which he could be extremely subtle about it.


Mozart was the supreme genius of the 'less is more' school. Of course, if one goes only for music with huge romantic swoons and exaggerated gestures then Mozart is out. Thankfully I can enjoy both types of music but for me Mozart remains one of the supreme geniuses of music as he could put a whole range of emotions into a phrase. Just think of the Countess' forgiveness of the Count in Figaro. A whole lifetime of emotions realised in a phrase. Incredible!


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Fun fact. The data I have from my polls indicate that "the atonal people" on TC like Mozart, while "the Mozart people" are, as a whole, not so broad-minded (but are broad-minded more often than not).


We don't need none of them fact things mucking up our forum, thank you very much.


----------



## DaveM

DavidA said:


> Mozart was the supreme genius of the 'less is more' school. Of course, if one goes only for music with huge romantic swoons and exaggerated gestures then Mozart is out. Thankfully I can enjoy both types of music but for me Mozart remains one of the supreme geniuses of music as he could put a whole range of emotions into a phrase. Just think of the Countess' forgiveness of the Count in Figaro. A whole lifetime of emotions realised in a phrase. Incredible!


The 'Contessa perdono' of Figaro Act IV is one of the most emotionally striking and one of the most beautiful moments in all of opera. And along with the rest of the opera, nothing had ever been heard like it at that time.

I was introduced to Mozart opera by the movie Amadeus. Up until that time, I had concentrated on symphonies, concertos etc. (The only opera I had listened to extensively was Beethoven's Fidelio.)

After Amadeus, I spent the next 5 years getting my hands on every opera and choral work Mozart ever wrote. I've listened to many Figaro performances since then and have to say that even though portions of Amadeus were fictional and some of the plot points occasionally silly, the music was presented with great respect and the Contessa Perdono sequence is/was a standout.


----------



## Pugg

Eva Yojimbo said:


> And Hitchcock was right. Let actors do theater if they want more freedom and control.


Excellent analysing :tiphat:


----------



## Antihero

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology


----------



## gellio

poconoron said:


> My guess would be the following:
> 
> No other composer in the history of Western music put forth such an incredible body of musical works, _*by the age of 35*_, in which amazing masterpieces were produced in every genre, _*including opera.*_ Other major composers lived for the most part into their 60s, 70, and 80s. In fact, most composers created their greatest masterpieces at much more advanced ages than their 20s and 30s as Mozart did.
> 
> Also, name just one other composer who mastered opera _*as well as *_ every other genre. Answer -there are none. Handel comes the closest.


This. I truly believe it is a great tragedy that Mozart was taken from the world at such a young age. Imagine what he could have done had he has another 35 years.

For me what I love about Mozart is I hear new things every time I listen. Figaro is probably my favorite of his works. I've listened to it hundreds, if not thousands of times, I can probably hum the whole work, but every time I hear something new, even if it's the smallest phrase.


----------



## ArtMusic

gellio said:


> This. I truly believe it is a great tragedy that Mozart was taken from the world at such a young age. Imagine what he could have done had he has another 35 years.
> 
> For me what I love about Mozart is I hear new things every time I listen. Figaro is probably my favorite of his works. I've listened to it hundreds, if not thousands of times, I can probably hum the whole work, but every time I hear something new, even if it's the smallest phrase.


I consider Mozart's early death as music greatest tragedy. You second paragraph proves Mozart's genius in that it communicates with infinity beauty with you and with numerous others throughout time.


----------



## Morimur

ArtMusic said:


> I consider Mozart's early death as music greatest tragedy. You second paragraph proves Mozart's genius in that it communicates with infinity beauty with you and with numerous others throughout time.


Mozart died at his appointed time. Lamenting his supposed early demise is pointless.


----------



## Woodduck

Morimur said:


> Mozart died at his appointed time. Lamenting his supposed early demise is pointless.


Given that no one told him when the appointment was, it's amazing that he wasn't late for it. Some people are just lucky.


----------



## ArtMusic

Morimur said:


> Mozart died at his appointed time. Lamenting his supposed early demise is pointless.


Appointed by who? Antonio Salieri, of course ....


----------



## DeepR

DeepR said:


> All I need is my own experience in music, completely independent and ignorant of outside influence, fact or opinion, to establish to myself, that he was a genius, or a great composer, or whatever. One piece or movement of a piece can be enough to convince me. In the case of Mozart it was the finale of symphony no. 41.


I recently heard it in concert and it was great. So much goosebumps.


----------



## gellio

Woody Allen once said the second movement of the ' Jupiter' symphony proves the existence of God. He had his character also say, in Manhattan, it was one of the things that makes life worth living!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This expresses my view pretty well. Mozart did indeed compose a goodly number of extraordinary works. But I find myself picking and choosing, and often choosing among the individual movements of multi-movement works. Being flawlessly written is not exactly a definition of an "amazing masterpiece"; there's also that intangible element of "having something striking and profound to say," not to mention having a fresh, bold way of saying it. The latter two were simply not expected, or for the most part wanted, by Mozart's audiences, and even to the extent that he provided them (which he certainly did) he took criticism for doing so.
> 
> Just one example: my idea of listening to the "Prague" Symphony is to stop after the first movement, which is indeed an amazing masterpiece; I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the rest, but the other movements don't provide an essential experience after the magnificence and completeness of the first. It wasn't until his 40th in g-minor that Mozart came close - close - to the achievement that really belongs to Beethoven: that of composing an entire symphony in which the four movements constituted an entity larger than the sum of its parts, and which was an amazing masterpiece from first note to last.


I just heard the 40th g minor on the radio while driving, and it struck me as well. The thing is full of thematic continuity, and sounds completely integrated on every level.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

gellio said:


> Woody Allen once said the second movement of the ' Jupiter' symphony proves the existence of God. He had his character also say, in Manhattan, it was one of the things that makes life worth living!


Closely followed in that capacity by the face of his character's 17 year old girlfriend.


----------



## Rosie

Mozart is a genius and he's hot. I wish people still compose such lovely music


----------



## Pugg

Rosie said:


> Mozart is a genius and he's hot. I wish people still compose such lovely music


We only can dream I am afraid Rosie.:angel:


----------



## Rosie

Pugg said:


> We only can dream I am afraid Rosie.:angel:


I like that dream allot Mozart beauty. He be America next top model!!!


----------



## Rosie

pugg what your fav Mozart piece?


----------



## Pugg

Rosie said:


> pugg what your fav Mozart piece?


Just one, that's torture .
Grand Partiata, Cosi Fan Tutte , his string quartets , you see, I just can't stop .


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

We need to bring Mozart back from the dead.


----------



## Rosie

Pugg said:


> Just one, that's torture .
> Grand Partiata, Cosi Fan Tutte , his string quartets , you see, I just can't stop .


Oh yes love those wish we listen together U go gerl!


----------



## millionrainbows

OldFashionedGirl said:


> We need to bring Mozart back from the dead.


I'm so _sick_ of zombies!


----------



## Guest

OldFashionedGirl said:


> We need to bring Mozart back from the dead.


I don't think we do.


----------



## Pugg

OldFashionedGirl said:


> We need to bring Mozart back from the dead.


If only.......I think he died from a heart attack right away nowadays .


----------

