# The significance of Mozart



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

I'm sure these classical forums are sick of hearing his name all the time after hearing so many other composers. He could very well be overrated strictly within the realm of classical music. The amadeus movie probably didn't help creating the notion of "extraordinary versus mediocrity". Nor does it help that he was German (or Austrian)

With that being said, I think Mozart is probably the most underrated historical figure. That is because we think of Mozart as strictly being a contributor to music. I think society still holds this notion that music is a side thing, while we do revere musicians we don't actually think of them as contributers to society. Try telling your parents you want to quit school and become a musician.

Mozart's reason for being so important is that I think he is the biggest contributor in the side of rationalism. If you do not know what it is, it is one side of a philosophical debate that has been happening for thousands of years. That is, rationalism versus empiricism. The debate between the soul against material.

The majority of contributions that have been made that we remember have all been empirical. Even Einstein, while being a rationalist, is famous for his contributions to empiricism. In the last two hundred year science and empiricism has utterly dominated, and rightfully so, I'm not going to criticize science. Religon has created an infamous reputation for itself, and the only contributions made in the last couple of hundered years have been in the form of art. But the thing with art is that we view it as separate from reality. Like we might think "I can appreciate this painting, or these piece by Shakespear, but it is just a fantasy version of reality" We might look at a section of zen budhism and the samurai's and we might appreciate it, but we think in all actuality they do not stand a chance against an army with guns. And so as Freud said, while the side of rationalism may be "wishful thinking" there is no evidence to suggest that it is true and so we should focus ourselves on the side of material.
Mozart however is the very symbol of rationalism, the music itself is the evidence. I think he was aware of his role at somewhat of an early age and he fits the very archetype of it. To die poor and young, having an inconstistent job while having made a giant catalog of music most of it maintaining a happy tone. We do not think of his life as a tragedy though, we think of it as a complete victory as the movie suggests, and I think that is exactly what Plato's archeype is. For example in his dialogue, questioning if "it is it better to be good but be despised the gods, or to be bad and be loved by the gods" While "the gods" are out of the picture, we can replace it with society. I think we all certainly agree with that quote, its just that we never see any evidence of it being true. But Mozart clearly demonstrates otherwise.
I myself am a musician, and people who know me think of me as really good, and it is sometimes heartbreaking just to hear one of his pieces after a long day of practicing, but his role far extends beyond music. Idk I just wanted to posted this to hear your thoughts


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

To the extent that music speaks to the ineffable better than just about any human utterance, Mozart -- along with a handful of other great composers -- certainly offers a major antidote to materialism. But to express it as an exclusive dichotomy I think gives the arts in general short shrift. I am, for instance, proud that one of my sons is in theatre, because he is thereby directly involved in the transmission of civilization. He may never get rich -- but that's not the point.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

I was not negating shakespear, nor budhism nor painting. I'm a fan of all three of those. I was just saying why empiricism has far more control over us now more than ever. The fact of the matter is empirical forces have defeated the rational forces for more than thousands of years, and it will continue to do so, and the only instance to suggest that it does not is Mozart. So to be fair, as much as we should appreciate all types of music and various arts I think that really should be a second priority.

In other words: Go back 4,000 years ago, you're a king you want power you take over the world, steal everyone's wealth. You appear to win, have everything. The people see it, they think that king is in the highest position and they all desire to be like him. As a result they too start to gradually desire power they seek it, they move out to different lands to start their own kingdom then they start to attempt to conquer on another. Do they seek art? Hell no, they seek power.And so they go enslaving everyone around them, having the enslaved have a burning desire to also one day be king, because land wealth and gold is everything.

Then Mozart comes along, parents died at a young age, wrote tons of music, died broke and at an early age and by doing so he defeats all of those kings. As much as all art is sweet, and people can be good, I've seen enough to put my trust in the majority


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2016)

Thanks for the OP, hagridinminor. Although I find it a little puzzling, it prompted me back to Stanford's website to look up 'rationalism v empiricism'

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

and search for the idea that 'Mozart was a rationalist'

http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/donelan/Mozart.html


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for the OP, hagridinminor. Although I find it a little puzzling, it prompted me back to Stanford's website to look up 'rationalism v empiricism'
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
> 
> ...


I don't recall if Mozart was ever formally educated, probably also didn't have much pursuit in philosophy so I don't think he'd directly call himself a rationalist.(as its mainly a term used in philosophy) I'm not even entirely sure when these terms were first coined. I firmly believe these are concepts which are occurring beyond the human eye especially during the enlightenment period


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I just like his music.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Alydon said:


> I just like his music.


Me to, there's very little I don't like in his works :tiphat:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

He certainly was an inspired man. 1787 would've been a nice year to see Mozart in action, the premiere of the Prague Symphony, the production of Don Giovanni (the town loved him) and the composition of the String Quintet in G minor.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hagridindminor said:


> I don't recall if Mozart was ever formally educated, probably also didn't have much pursuit in philosophy so I don't think he'd directly call himself a rationalist.(as its mainly a term used in philosophy) I'm not even entirely sure when these terms were first coined. I firmly believe these are concepts which are occurring beyond the human eye especially during the enlightenment period


Mozart was very well read as a result of his father's educational curriculum. I am not sure exactly what philosophy he was familiar with, but I would guess that he was at least acquainted with the classics in passing.

There was a book a few years ago that called the history of intellectual discourse a tug of war between the philosophy of Plato and that of Aristotle. The latter was identified primarily with the scientists, the inventors, and others who put the practical before the ideal, while the former was identified with the artists and others who looked to something beyond the world we perceive.

Many composers, in their statements about art, come off as Platonists, such as Mahler saying that the music composed him. I don't think a focus on the ineffable is by any means exclusive to or especially prominent in Mozart, beautiful though his music undoubtedly is.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Many composers, in their statements about art, come off as Platonists, such as Mahler saying that the music composed him. I don't think a focus on the ineffable is by any means exclusive to or especially prominent in Mozart, beautiful though his music undoubtedly is.


I think Mozart occasionally makes too hilarious fun of idealism (especially in his operas, like at the end of Die Entführung aus dem Serail or in the entirety of La clemenza di Tito, for example) to be described as a cut-and-dried Platonist.

On the other hand, this is probably equally true of Plato.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> I think Mozart occasionally makes too hilarious fun of idealism (especially in his operas, like at the end of Die Entführung aus dem Serail or in the entirety of La clemenza di Tito, for example) to be described as a cut-and-dried Platonist.


In this context, how can one fail to mention _Così fan tutte_?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> In this context, how can one fail to mention _Così fan tutte_?


Careful what you say about my beloved Fiordiligi, my friend!


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Mozart was very well read as a result of his father's educational curriculum. I am not sure exactly what philosophy he was familiar with, but I would guess that he was at least acquainted with the classics in passing.
> 
> There was a book a few years ago that called the history of intellectual discourse a tug of war between the philosophy of Plato and that of Aristotle. The latter was identified primarily with the scientists, the inventors, and others who put the practical before the ideal, while the former was identified with the artists and others who looked to something beyond the world we perceive.
> 
> Many composers, in their statements about art, come off as Platonists, such as Mahler saying that the music composed him. I don't think a focus on the ineffable is by any means exclusive to or especially prominent in Mozart, beautiful though his music undoubtedly is.


I just want to clarify my post: I didn't say art is exclusively reserved by Mozart, nor did I say he is the most significant artist. I'm just saying he is underrated in terms of historical contributions in which musicians are overlooked. It was as if he was created by Plato himself.

Now we think of Aristotle as the founder of empiricism, and the "opposition" of Plato. Aristotle was Plato's student and eventually became the head of Plato's school. While he certainly disagreed in various ways there were a lot of things which he agreed with. I think it really comes down to him being quite ambitious and not wanting to just be a reinforcer of Plato's thought. His version of empiricism is very different than todays. I think the reason why the two sides are so strongly accentuated is due to the Romans imposing their teaching onto the people while completly abandoning the philosophical component. This created two sides between Christianity and atheism, you are either one or the other. Who knows which side Aristotle would side with today.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> I think Mozart occasionally makes too hilarious fun of idealism (especially in his operas, like at the end of Die Entführung aus dem Serail or in the entirety of La clemenza di Tito, for example) to be described as a cut-and-dried Platonist.
> 
> On the other hand, this is probably equally true of Plato.


I don't think thats fair to say, given the time period. Where one nation overthrows a nation like sport, tyrants are common, and your city is being controlled by Sparta


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

hagridindminor said:


> I'm just saying he is underrated in terms of historical contributions in which musicians are overlooked. It was as if he was created by Plato himself.


I'm still not sure I get your point. Was Mozart great? Yes. Is he under-appreciated? No. Do people misunderstand his contribution to philosophy? Huh?


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

From what I have read, Mozart's genius was recognised right from the start, apart from a tendency in some circles up to the 1950s to regard him as a mere stepping stone to the superior genius of LvB etc - a sort of Whig interpretation of musical history (wrong for music as it is for history).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

hagridindminor said:


> I'm sure these classical forums are sick of hearing his name all the time after hearing so many other composers. He could very well be overrated strictly within the realm of classical music. The amadeus movie probably didn't help creating the notion of "extraordinary versus mediocrity". Nor does it help that he was German (or Austrian)
> 
> With that being said, I think Mozart is probably the most underrated historical figure. That is because we think of Mozart as strictly being a contributor to music. I think society still holds this notion that music is a side thing, while we do revere musicians we don't actually think of them as contributers to society. Try telling your parents you want to quit school and become a musician.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this post. I agree entirely.

Mozart would easily count among the great genius of mankind. I am paart reading a book by Professor Christoph Wolff (an authority on Bach), and Mozart's last few years were a turning point for his art and the whole course of western classical music with vastly important hints of Romanticism to come if he lived longer. Minor key works were increasingly important, including several incomplete chamber music/string quartets all in minor keys.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

What about the relationship between the material world and Mozart? He lived off his music - had no other choice - and what did he do with his money in his heydey? overspent the family budget on today's equivalent of a 4 bed penthouse in Chelsea - it ruined him and he ended up downgrading - but only after frittering his money away - money that could have tided him over in lean times. That's the irony - Mozart had his ambitions too - social and economic - yet his music now lives as an escape from today's dominant materialst ideology.
I have always said that if I was a billionaire I would have my own opera company, orchestra etc - organise my own festivals - devote my wealth to music. But I'm not bothered about money - and I imagine that true lovers of art have no interest in accumulating vast amounts of wealth - so there are no mega rich people who bestow their money on music in a big way, as far as I know - Prince Charles has his own harpist I understand.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

stomanek said:


> I have always said that if I was a billionaire I would have my own opera company, orchestra etc - organise my own festivals - devote my wealth to music. But I'm not bothered about money - and I imagine that true lovers of art have no interest in accumulating vast amounts of wealth - so there are no mega rich people who bestow their money on music in a big way, as far as I know - Prince Charles has his own harpist I understand.


Sorry for the digression, but some may be interested in this recent news story about a man who won a very big lottery prize:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-poverty-vow-wins-2598m-powerball-jackpot/story?id=24427490


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I think Beethoven fits the role of the OP more so than Mozart. He was the first to recognize that what he was doing was unique to the world and would be remembered long after the kings and queens of his day (or any for that matter). As for the great geniuses of mankind I don't think any composers would be at that table, of which I could only name two souls Isaac Newton & Albert Einstein.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Definitely disagree with that second sentence. Genius doesn't manifest itself only in those things which can be measured.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Definitely disagree with that second sentence. Genius doesn't manifest itself only in those things which can be measured.


Genius seems to be referred to in connection with art more than in science - in our way of understanding this word most would agree that Mozart bach beethoven and schubert were geniuses - in science we have Einstein - ok - Newton too - but even men of science when thinking about doing something really special refer to Mozart when discussing the nature and scale of the achievement
I knew a guy who said if Mozart had been a scientist - his level of intellect would have solved the world energy problem - but his genius manifested in beautiful music - and thank goodness. Science can make our lives more comfortable - can feed us, cure us of ills and get us around - but it cant send shivers down our spines or make us feel like we are in a heavenly space.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Genius seems to be referred to in connection with art more than in science - in our way of understanding this word most would agree that Mozart bach beethoven and schubert were geniuses - in science we have Einstein - ok - Newton too - but even men of science when thinking about doing something really special refer to Mozart when discussing the nature and scale of the achievement
> I knew a guy who said if Mozart had been a scientist - his level of intellect would have solved the world energy problem - but his genius manifested in beautiful music - and thank goodness. Science can make our lives more comfortable - can feed us, cure us of ills and get us around - but it cant send shivers down our spines or make us feel like we are in a heavenly space.


I knew I had been over this territory before... under the thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/40338-concept-genius-composer-meaningful-2.html



> I'm of a mindset that thinks the word "genius" is thrown around far too often. Since the dawn of man there have been only a few handfuls of genius'. I would apply the moniker to Isaac Newton & Albert Einstein those guys did some things it seems no human being could ever achieve.
> 
> Now looking at all the composers that I have come to know, the only two I feel could ever be in the running for the title are Bach & Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Genius seems to be referred to in connection with art more than in science - in our way of understanding this word most would agree that Mozart bach beethoven and schubert were geniuses - in science we have Einstein - ok - Newton too - but even men of science when thinking about doing something really special refer to Mozart when discussing the nature and scale of the achievement
> I knew a guy who said if Mozart had been a scientist - his level of intellect would have solved the world energy problem - but his genius manifested in beautiful music - and thank goodness. Science can make our lives more comfortable - can feed us, cure us of ills and get us around - but it cant send shivers down our spines or make us feel like we are in a heavenly space.


Amen to this. Heirs of the age of materialism, we have shrunk the term "genius," and forgotten what it originally meant:

http://blog.dictionary.com/genius/

Now all you need to "be a genius" is a high IQ. We don't know the IQs of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Wagner - or Shakespeare or Michelangelo. We don't need to know them. Those fellows had geniuses to call upon - or geniuses calling upon them.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Fair enough Woodduck... I remember watching a lecture on Supersymmetry where the lecturer said mathematicians listen to Bach but quantum physicists listen to Mozart. I'll try to dig it up.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Fugue Meister said:


> I think Beethoven fits the role of the OP more so than Mozart. He was the first to recognize that what he was doing was unique to the world and would be remembered long after the kings and queens of his day (or any for that matter).


I don't think Bach would've lavished so much care on the manuscript of his St. Matthew Passion or compiling the third volume of the clavierubung, and Mozart wouldn't started writing out a thematic catalog of what he considered his best works (while leaving out arrangements) if they didn't think what they were writing would be remembered long after they were dead.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Amen to this. Heirs of the age of materialism, we have shrunk the term "genius," and forgotten what it originally meant:
> 
> http://blog.dictionary.com/genius/
> 
> Now all you need to "be a genius" is a high IQ. We don't know the IQs of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Wagner - or Shakespeare or Michelangelo. We don't need to know them. Those fellows had geniuses to call upon - or geniuses calling upon them.


Yes. It seems that people (in this thread) have different ideas as to what a 'genius' is. It has been defined by an IQ at various levels above 140, but even then, there is an acceptance that IQ-based definitions of genius can sometimes be sketchy.

Although I believe IQ should be taken into account, to me there's a sense in which when it comes to genius, we know one when we see one because these people are such outliers in their accomplishments eg. Magnus Carlsen, Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing etc.

In the chess world, there are now Grandmasters and Super Grandmasters (rating above 2700). Likewise, in classical music I don't know how anyone could deny the genius moniker applied to Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. And I would suggest that it can also be applied to Schubert, Chopin, Brahms and perhaps a few others. Perhaps they aren't quite at the level of the first-mentioned, but IMO, they are geniuses nonetheless.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Genius seems to be referred to in connection with art more than in science - in our way of understanding this word most would agree that Mozart bach beethoven and schubert were geniuses - in science we have Einstein - ok - Newton too - but even men of science when thinking about doing something really special refer to Mozart when discussing the nature and scale of the achievement
> I knew a guy who said if Mozart had been a scientist - his level of intellect would have solved the world energy problem - but his genius manifested in beautiful music - and thank goodness. Science can make our lives more comfortable - can feed us, cure us of ills and get us around - but it cant send shivers down our spines or make us feel like we are in a heavenly space.


I disagree. There are many scientists worthy of the description 'genius'. Science though, is a more collective enterprise and less concerned with expression of human emotions. 
However, the contemplation of concepts and scientific theories such as Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Genetics and the Life Cycle of Stars, can be quite as awe inspiring as a work by Mozart. And the individuals who made huge leaps of imagination in the quest for understanding, were certainly geniuses. 
There is a nice quote from I don't know who that goes:
"Talent hits the target no one else can hit but Genius hits the target no one else can see."


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

trazom said:


> I don't think Bach would've lavished so much care on the manuscript of his St. Matthew Passion or compiling the third volume of the clavierubung, and Mozart wouldn't started writing out a thematic catalog of what he considered his best works (while leaving out arrangements) if they didn't think what they were writing would be remembered long after they were dead.


Okay I flubbed a bit there what I mean was Beethoven was the first to trade on his art and make it his livelihood, the first rockstar as it were. I have no doubt that Mozart was fully aware of this but he never successfully traded on his art to work for himself. Mozart was either at the service of the church or trying to secure a court position, so he wrote a great deal of music that he didn't want to write but had to. Beethoven's entire life was spent do what he wanted in music because he made money from those compositions and he (luckily) had patronage. Yes, Beethoven probably had to write a few pieces he didn't want to but no where near the amount Mozart had to. Mozart (and Haydn) for that matter were born too early, had they been born a generation or two later they too could have enjoyed the artistic freedom Beethoven had.

Now Bach on the other hand I am firmly convinced he wasn't as concerned with Immortality in terms of his art, he may have been but it was never important to him. I really do believe he probably thought the vast majority of his music would be forgotten shortly after he died but he was such an inspired craftsman and musical "genius" that thankfully we know his entire output even today. Bach's chief concern was writing music to the glory of God and I'm sure in his modesty he thought his output was nothing in comparison of the glory of God, even though many of us including myself feel his music is the very voice of God.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

How much of genius is potential and how much accomplishment? I remember reading of the man who had the highest IQ measured in the US, but he never accomplished much at all. OTOH, maybe it doesn't require an IQ of 160 to write a Beethoven symphony. There was little else in Ludwig's life to suggest any blinding brilliance (although he was certainly no dummy).


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Petwhac said:


> There is a nice quote from I don't know who that goes:
> "Talent hits the target no one else can hit but Genius hits the target no one else can see."


Arthur Schopenhauer.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I disagree. There are many scientists worthy of the description 'genius'. Science though, is a more collective enterprise and less concerned with expression of human emotions.
> However, the contemplation of concepts and scientific theories such as Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Genetics and the Life Cycle of Stars, can be quite as awe inspiring as a work by Mozart. And the individuals who made huge leaps of imagination in the quest for understanding, were certainly geniuses.
> There is a nice quote from I don't know who that goes:
> "Talent hits the target no one else can hit but Genius hits the target no one else can see."


The big difference is creativity versus problem solving. Mozart and other musical geniuses are creators - scientists are problem solvers. Two different applications of intelligence.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

stomanek said:


> The big difference is creativity versus problem solving. Mozart and other musical geniuses are creators - scientists are problem solvers. Two different applications of intelligence.


Is the distinction that clearcut? Can't creativity involve problem solving? Can't problem solving involve creativity?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> How much of genius is potential and how much accomplishment? I remember reading of the man who had the highest IQ measured in the US, but he never accomplished much at all. OTOH, maybe it doesn't require an IQ of 160 to write a Beethoven symphony. There was little else in Ludwig's life to suggest any blinding brilliance (although he was certainly no dummy).


Hmm. One could say there was little else in Bobby Fischer's life to suggest any blinding brilliance other than his chess. Or Einstein other than his Theory of Relativity (and a couple of other theories). Or Newton other than his Laws of Motion. Or...

However, as to your first sentence, I would say that 'accomplishment' is mandatory. I've always been sure that I have the potential to be a genius; it's the accomplishment part that is standing in my way.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

hagridindminor said:


> Then Mozart comes along, parents died at a young age, wrote tons of music, died broke and at an early age...


His mother died when he was young, but his father died only a few years before he did, and was his music teacher until he reached adulthood - and one of the best teachers in Europe.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

stomanek said:


> The big difference is creativity versus problem solving. Mozart and other musical geniuses are creators - scientists are problem solvers. Two different applications of intelligence.


Actually, a large part of music composition is problem solving. And to sit in a patent office and dream up the idea that space and time can be bent by the presence of matter is an example of creative genius of ever there was one.
Just to play Devil's advocate, may I suggest that Mozart had huge natural ability, great training, inherited a ready made musical language which he didn't feel the need to expand. He wrote sublimely beautiful music but if he broke new ground it was in the field of Opera as a dramatic undertaking as opposed to the more static and conventional forms of Handel et al.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

KenOC said:


> How much of genius is potential and how much accomplishment? I remember reading of the man who had the highest IQ measured in the US, but he never accomplished much at all. OTOH, maybe it doesn't require an IQ of 160 to write a Beethoven symphony. There was little else in Ludwig's life to suggest any blinding brilliance (although he was certainly no dummy).


I agree. Also, Beethoven was never given an IQ test. People estimated his IQ based on his work. 
So if those people went back and re-evaluated the IQ of that high-scoring person mentioned above only based on his work, I highly doubt it would come out to be the highest in the US.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

stomanek said:


> The big difference is creativity versus problem solving. Mozart and other musical geniuses are creators - scientists are problem solvers. Two different applications of intelligence.


Unless no one has defined the problem yet.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Although I think we have evidence that the greatest composers have been very intelligent people, I doubt that the relationship between creativity and IQ is at all consistent. Different areas of the brain can vary greatly in degrees of development, as in the extreme case of savants, who can do one thing astoundingly well while being generally impaired (although maybe they are not generally creative in art, a complex matter calling on many brain functions). There must be some studies of this by now.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Although I think we have evidence that the greatest composers have been very intelligent people, I doubt that the relationship between creativity and IQ is at all consistent. Different areas of the brain can vary greatly in degrees of development, as in the extreme case of savants, who can do one thing astoundingly well while being generally impaired (although maybe they are not generally creative in art, a complex matter calling on many brain functions). There must be some studies of this by now.


"Inteligence" is a multi-variate function -- you can be a genius along certain axes, but not others -- and most are like that. Stephen Jay Gould's book "The Mis-Measure of Man" elaborates on that really well -- while debunking the whole idea of a single IQ number.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Idk guys, I don't like to label Mozart a "genius", that I think just simplifies both him and his work


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Actually, a large part of music composition is problem solving. And to sit in a patent office and dream up the idea that space and time can be bent by the presence of matter is an example of creative genius of ever there was one.
> Just to play Devil's advocate, may I suggest that Mozart had huge natural ability, great training, inherited a ready made musical language which he didn't feel the need to expand. He wrote sublimely beautiful music but if he broke new ground it was in the field of Opera as a dramatic undertaking as opposed to the more static and conventional forms of Handel et al.


If you compare Mozart's late symphonies and many of his other compositions with what his contemporaries were doing at the same time - I dont think it's fair to say he only broke new ground in opera. Most symphones at that time were short and formulaic - the powerful opening of the prague symphony was groundbreaking - even comparing with what haydn had done at that time. When my wife heard the Prague she was convinced it was Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> If you compare Mozart's late symphonies and many of his other compositions with what his contemporaries were doing at the same time - I dont think it's fair to say he only broke new ground in opera. Most symphones at that time were short and formulaic - the powerful opening of the prague symphony was groundbreaking - even comparing with what haydn had done at that time. When my wife heard the Prague she was convinced it was Beethoven.


Agree 100%. Mozart's late symphonies were a whole new ballgame, and still are.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

stomanek said:


> If you compare Mozart's late symphonies and many of his other compositions with what his contemporaries were doing at the same time - I dont think it's fair to say he only broke new ground in opera. Most symphones at that time were short and formulaic - the powerful opening of the prague symphony was groundbreaking - even comparing with what haydn had done at that time. When my wife heard the Prague she was convinced it was Beethoven.


We have been discussing the term genius in relation to art and science. Of course Mozart's late symphonies are wonderful, original works of the highest order but did they change the course of the symphony? Did they influence 'symphonic thinking' to the same extent that Beethoven's did? Or the way Einstein forced the whole scientific world to re-think it's fundamental assumptions about the nature if reality?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Mozart wasn't a genius but I think you do a disservice to all the huge minds in the world of science by calling them mere problem-solvers.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> Of course Mozart's late symphonies are wonderful, original works of the highest order but did they change the course of the symphony? Did they influence 'symphonic thinking' to the same extent that Beethoven's did?


Mozart just did not live enough to compose "sturm und drang" symphonies.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

jdec said:


> Mozart just did not live enough to compose "sturm und drang" symphonies.


Is sy 25 not sturm and drang?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

stomanek said:


> Is sy 25 not sturm and drang?


Yes. I meant, Mozart just did not live enough to compose more/mature "sturm und drang" symphonies.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

jdec said:


> Yes. I meant, Mozart just did not live enough to compose more/mature "sturm und drang" symphonies.


Nor did he live long enough to compose romantic tone-poems or expressionist music-drama. What's that got to do with anything?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Nor did he live long enough to compose romantic tone-poems or expressionist music-drama. What's that got to do with anything?


He never got around to adding that spare bedroom extension either. Life is tough.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Just to play Devil's advocate, may I suggest that Mozart had huge natural ability, great training, inherited a ready made musical language which he didn't feel the need to expand. He wrote sublimely beautiful music but if he broke new ground it was in the field of Opera as a dramatic undertaking as opposed to the more static and conventional forms of Handel et al.


So you don't see any stylistic development or "new ground broken" between Mozart's piano concertos and those of JC Bach, or his string quintets compared to those of Michael Haydn or Boccherini? What about composing in a new genre of chamber music like the two piano quartets he wrote?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

trazom said:


> So you don't see any stylistic development or "new ground broken" between Mozart's piano concertos and those of JC Bach, or his string quintets compared to those of Michael Haydn or Boccherini? What composing in a new genre of chamber music like the two piano quartets he wrote?


agree with your point here - Mozart was in innovator - as I say just go and compare Cimarosa/Salieri/M Haydn and others of the time - then listen to Mozart in almost every genre - there is quite a gulf.

Beethoven's first 2 symphonies are just childish noises compared to the last 4 Mozart symphonies - but of course his Eroica takes over from where the jupiter left off.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Frankly talking about Mozart not being an innovator is nonsense. He may not have been a revolutionary in the sense that he adapted given forms but where he took them was something quite remarkable. In opera the three da Ponte operas introduced something that had never been seen much before - opera with real characters. And his musical and psychological development of them was quite beyond anything that had gone before it. The piano concertos are among the greatest ever offerings for music with dozens of innovations written into them. Same with most of his music. OK some of the 'band music' he churched out is pleasing because he was a genius. Because it was all done with a subtlety that escapes some people does not mean it was not done at all.


----------

